Mikhas Yanchuk, a representative of Belsat TV channel in Belarus, think the decision of the Supreme Court is absolutely ridiculous.
It became known today that the Supreme Court of Belarus obliged the Polish television to stop using the trademark Belsat when broadcasting in Belarus and banned the used of the trademark on Belsat's website.
The lawsuit against the independent Belarusian-language TV channel Belsat was filed by Andrei Beliakou, the director of BELSATplus firm that installs satellite television systems. According to Beliakou, his company suffers losses due to to the similarity of the company's name and the one of the TV channel, Nasha Niva reports.
Mikhail Yanchuk, Belsat's representative in Belarus, thinks the decision of the court is absolutely ridiculous: “Nothing will change in the work of the TV channel after today's court decision, because trademark protection is based on the territorial principle.
Beliakou has the right to protect his trademark only in the territory of Belarus. As for the territory of the EU, in particular Poland, our trademark is registered legally and can be used for all sorts of statutory activities, which we plan to continue.
We do not broadcast in Belarus. We have no accredited correspondents here due to the efforts of the Belarusian authorities. Belsat has no property and bank accounts in Belarus. We do not present in Belarus as an economic agent.
If the Belarusian court were consistent, the trial would not have taken place, because one of the parties is a foreign economic agent. Beliakou should have filed a lawsuit in the country of Belsat's registration. Beliakou knows it would be impossible in Poland, so he sued the TV channel in Belarus.”
On January 27, 2014, panel of judges of the Supreme Court dismissed Andrei Beliakou's lawsuit, because the claimant had not provided evidence that his exclusive trademark rights were violated.
Five months later, the Presidium of the Supreme Court made the decision to send Andrei Beliakou's lawsuit against Belsat for reconsideration due to alleged imperfect examination of the evidence in the case.