Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What do the fall of the Soviet Union, a heist of trademark rights, and Stolichnaya vodka have in common? They are all key components of the Russian Federation's efforts to reclaim its trademarks in Stolichnaya vodka. After a convoluted history both of the transfer of these marks and the litigation to recover these marks, Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport (FTE), the entity seeking to recover the Stolichnaya marks for the Russian Federation, has finally survived a motion to dismiss its case of trademark infringement after sixteen years of litigation. Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits International B.V., 2020 WL 4349840 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020). So why did it take so long for FTE to get to this stage?
The Stolichnaya marks have passed through many hands in a series of confusing corporate transactions. They have taken the following path to their current disputed ownership:
On its face, these transactions, while convoluted, do not seem to imply that the Russian Federation is still the proper owner of the Stolichnaya marks. But the list of these transactions omits one key fact — the privatization of VVO-SPI to VAO-SPI was fraudulent, as the Second Circuit found in 2010.
During the fall of the Soviet Union, the General Director of VVO-SPI, Evgeniy Sorochkin, took control of the VVO-SPI assets and privatized them in VAO-SPI. Sorochkin then convinced PepsiCo that this fraud did not occur and that VAO-SPI was the legitimate successor of VVO-SPI. Additionally, the subsequent transfer of the marks that led to Spirits International holding them could not be characterized as ones having clean hands. The transfer of rights from VAO-SPI to ZAO-SPI was calculated to get the rights to Spirits International, a company that is not organized in Russia. The same people who controlled ZAO-SPI also control Spirits International. Thus, in the tumult of the fall of the Soviet Union, Sorochkin was able to essentially steal the Stolichnaya marks from VVO-SPI and eventually transfer them to Spirits International.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.