IPStyle was applied by the Company engaged in production and sales of iron-and-steel products. The Company produces, among others, skull-producing material according to the technical specifications developed. The Company’s competitor accused the latter of infringing the copyright in the technical specifications for the production of this material, arguing that the latter had copied the competitor’s text into their own technical specifications.
In addition to the demand to stop infringing by the Company of the competitor’s copyright in the technical specifications, in particular, through publication, modification and use, the competitor claimed to prohibit the Company from manufacturing the products according to their specifications. Moreover, the competitor sought to collect from the Company the amount of about 350, 000.00 UAH as the Company’s product sales income.
IPStyle lawyers represented the interests of the Company as a defendant before the Commercial court. In the process, IPStyle lawyers were able to prove that the claimant (competitor) confused:
(1) the concept of copyright object, which technical specifications actually constitutes as an objective form of providing technical information, and
(2) one’s own technical solution which is described in technical specifications and reflects the process of skull-producing material manufacture.
This argument and the proofs funished in its support were decisive in resolving the dispute. The court agreed with the explanations given by IPStyle lawyers that legal protection, which may extend to the competitor’s technical specifications as a copyright object, protects solely the original form of technical data reflection, that is, the text of technical specifications in particular. Copyright does not extend to any ideas, decisions, principles, procedures and processes as in compliance with the international legal and national copyright laws. Thus, given the fact that manufacture of products with the use of the information, namely the process and method set forth in the disputed technical specifications, is not protected by copyright, the court found no legal grounds to prohibit the Company from manufacture of products according to the disputable technical specifications. Likewise, the claims for collecting money were rejected because the funds had been received by the Company not as income from the sale of copies of technical specifications but rather from the production and sale of products manufactured on the basis of these specifications.
IPStyle protected the Company’s interests in court. Due to the correct defining of technical specifications legal nature and the limits of their legal protection, the claim to prohibit the Company from manufacturing their products in accordance with the disputable technical specifications, as well as the demand for the recovery of monetary funds, was not satisfied by the court. Thus, the primary goal – retention of the Company’s economic stability and its finances – was reached due to IPStyle efforts.