On Identification Of IT Services

By the example of a social network FACEBOOK, the possible problems arising when filing for registration of a trademark and further proving of its use, are discussed in this article.

First of all, it is necessary to clarify the meaning for the term «service." If the definition of a trademark has no difficulty, it is contained within the article of the same name of the Russian Civil Code, the definition of «service» is not so easy to find.

One would assume that it is formulated in Article 779 of the Civil Code on the Service Agreement, but there the concept of services is revealed through the activities: provide services means to commit certain acts or to carry out certain activities. To the question «What is a service?» it does not respond, forcing us to turn to other fields of law.

In paragraph 5 of Article 38 of the Russian Tax Code, service is recognized to be the activity, the results of which have no material expression, that is sold and consumed during this activity. In this case, the definition of service is given by the result, which is useful for tax purposes, but it does not disclose the nature of service. Perhaps the closest definition of service is given in Article 4 of the Russian Federal Law «On Protection of Competition," which indicates that service — it is an object of civil rights, intended for introduction into circulation. As it is known, the scope of legal protection for a trademark is defined by a list of goods and services for individualization of which it is registered. To draft it when filing a trademark application, an applicant is governed by the International Classification of Goods and Services (ICGS), but no matter how universal it is, the ICGS is not developing fast enough and cannot describe in time all services actually rendered by rightholders. It is especially obvious for high-tech companies, whose activities, in fact, create more and more new types of services.

Service is immaterial, in contrast to the goods, it is impossible to label it with a trademark. Therefore, as an evidence of use of a trade mark in respect of services normally documents are provided confirming the fact of its delivery. Such evidence can be divided into two groups:

The first is the proof of a trademark use in general; that is, during the implementation of the company activities, such as notary inspection reports of signs, web-sites, advertising materials and other most diverse documents (letterheads, business cards, etc.). The second, and the most important group of evidence, is — documents directly accompanying the rendering of services: contracts, invoices and bills drawn up on the ground of the contracts, and acts. It may be objected, pointing out that the usual business practice does not provide the use of combined or device trade marks on the contracts and acts, but this does not preclude their use for the forms of bills and invoices.

Let’s suppose that we wish to register a trademark for the social network. To do this, we need to compile a list of services to be provided. Since the Russian PTO is known for its conservatism as far as the wording of the list is concerned, let’s turn first to the services which are offered by the acting 10th edition of ICGS.

The social network refers to a platform, an on-line service or a website, which is intended for construction, reflection, and organization of social relationships; assuming it, in the description of the classes of ICGS only two suitable classes may be allocated:

class 35: a description of services of which is the only one that comprises Internet sites, and

class 38: which comprises services allowing, at least, to one person to communicate with another person by sensor means. Choosing the proper services only from these classes, one gets the following list:

class 35 — Maintenance of automated databases; searching for information in computer files for third parties; advertising; interactive advertising on a computer network; collecting information in computer databases;

class 38 — Services in the field of public relations; transfer of greeting cards on-line; message and images communication with a computer; providing access to databases; providing access to discussion forums on the Internet; transfer of digital files.

Does it contain a description of all services provided by a social networking? No.

And while the 10-th edition ICGS was entered into force on January 1, 2012, it turns out, that it does not contain services that reflect the activity of high-tech companies. In April ultimo on the website of the Russian PTO, Newsletter No 2 of 23.12.2011 was published, dealing with the wording of the terms that identify the services related to trading activities, with their inclusion in the list of class 35, where, among other things, it was stated that «… As it is known, the list of goods and services contained in ICGS is not exhaustive. In compiling the list of goods and (or) services in respect of which the state registration of a trademark (service mark) is sought, the applicant may specify the goods and (or) services that are absent in ICGS, denoting their precise wording, taking into account the specific binding to the classes of ICGS, which allow to identify the goods and (or) services…»

Of course, this letter is referred only to the wordings relating to trading activities, but allows us to hope that this approach will be strengthened as a key one in the Russian PTO for examination of applications and for other terms of services.

The absence of other options when compiling the list of services for trademark registration in respect of a social network, forces us, based upon the terms of ICGS, to invent new wordings, which can provide the right amount of legal protection. It is especially obvious in the registration of the trademarks of the company FACEBOOK in respect of the eponymous social network.

The launch of the Russian-language version of the social network Facebook was announced on June 20, 2008. Approximately, the same time, in Russia it was registered trademark FACEBOOK according to the Certificate No354,121. As an example, let’s consider the list of services contained in this registration in class 35: the service delivery on providing on- line information, including information relating to the university life, common interests, ads, virtual communities, social contacts, exchange of photographic materials, delivery of photographic images, advertising services and proliferation of the information, including the provision of bundled advertising spaces on the subject through a global computer network, promotion of goods and services for third parties via the Internet.

Obviously, when compiling the list, the boilerplate of the ICGS was taken (printed in normal font), which was complemented by a creative description of the social-networking features (in bold). In accordance with this principle, it is built also the rest of the list of services of classes 38, 42 and 45 in this registration.

From the perspective of an ordinary user, the list is successful, but, nevertheless, does not reflect the actual activities within the company. Sources of income derived from the social network consist of profits from advertising services (82.4% of all the profit), and revenue from the monetization of applications developed as an in-house and so by third-party developers.

Since it is in these areas the relationships between the company and customers are settled by contracts, these services, the owner of the social network in the event of the claims of non-use of a trademark, could justify by the documents. In more recent trademark registrations in the name of the company FACEBOOK, for instance, the registration of the trademark § (Сertificate No448863 of 09.12.2011), a «profitable» part of the activities within the company was taken into consideration, in particular, the goods of class 9 appeared on the list (applications themselves and means to development thereof), services of class 36 (virtual currency for users) and class 41 (services of electronic journals and blogs). Moreover, the wording of the other classes in previous registrations, also underwent significant changes. In the list there have appeared many new terms that are absent in ICGS. For example, application programming interfaces (API) for computer software to support on-line services of the social networking, building of applications for social networks and for searching, downloading the data across the network and from the network, for data access and data management; electronic processing and data transmission of bill payment for users of computer and communication networks, providing on-line communication links that take users of the web site to other local and global web pages, providing access to web sites of third parties by means of a universal login (user name); social services in the area of dating and networking, social-networking services and organization of friendly meetings, etc.

It would seem that if the new list describes in detail the actual activities within the company, what problems might arise in the proof of use of a trademark? The fact is that in the proof of certain types of services, the current practice shall be taken into account. For example, the above trade mark § was registered in respect of telecommunications services, i.e. services provided by means of a complex of technical means of information transfer over a distance. The hands-on practice of proof the use of a trademark for this type of service, comes from the fact that for the implementation of activities to provide the telecommunications services in Russia, a permission shall be received; i.e., a license for telecommunications services. Thus, the arguments of the rightholder that telecommunications services can be provided, for example, through the web site, most likely will not be accepted.

So, when filing for trademark registration in the field of information technology the particular attention should be paid to the compilation of the list. Insofar as the wording of ICGS has not kept up with the development of modern technologies, it cannot do with the stated terms of services. Any non-conventional list creates a risk of an examination request during the procedure in the Russian PTO; however, in this area, it is justified. In addition, even using the standard terms of ICGS in respect of any new technology, the rightholder, unfortunately, is not immune to the difficulties of proving the use of a trademark.