It has been more than a month since last year, and our Dispute Resolution consulting line has become one of the most dynamic in 2024. We can highlight the top 5 disputes.
1. Topic: Formats
What the case is about. The plaintiff approached the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia (FAS) and subsequently the court with a request to recognize the actions of two legal entities producing television programs for the Client as illegal, claiming that they violated antimonopoly legislation. These entities created cycles of television programs for the Client that were broadcast on the Client's channel. The plaintiff believed that their television programs were similar in both meaningful and visual content, perceived by viewers as the same programs created in the same genre – courtroom shows – and constituted "clone programs."
Why this is important for practice. This case was the first to consider a dispute over television program formats from the perspective of antimonopoly legislation in the context of whether the activity of creating television programs that are similar to the point of confusion with those of another producer constitutes a violation of antimonopoly legislation.
Our achievements. With the involvement of the Legal Bureau, the case was won not only at FAS but also in both the first instance and appellate courts. The Omega Legal Bureau is an expert in format rights, as representatives of the company were directly involved in the first case in Russia concerning format rights protection (Gestmusic Endemol vs. Channel One), and for many decades, the company has maintained and developed a high level of qualification on these issues. The decision sets a precedent for all disputes related to the protection of television program format rights.
2. Topic: Photo Trolls
What the case is about. The plaintiff is a professional troll who files mass claims regarding photographic works that have been reproduced, made public, and adapted on the Internet. The complexity of the dispute lies in the fact that almost 100% of such claims are satisfied by courts.
Why this is important for practice. The victory in this case demonstrated that it is possible to find effective mechanisms in such disputes that deny claims from plaintiffs abusing their rights. A number of arguments regarding successful defense strategies were discussed at the Round Table titled "Demanding Disproportionate Compensation for Violations of Exclusive Rights: Abuse or Prevention of Recidivism?" as part of the Copyright School, a branded event organized by the Omega Legal Bureau (held with the support of the Ministry of Digital Development of the Russian Federation).
Our achievements. The victory in this case marked a significant opportunity to win against procedural trolls and explore further pathways to address the issue of protecting the interests of good-faith rights holders. Previously, victories in such disputes seemed almost impossible.
3. Topic: Unfair Counterparties from Unfriendly Countries
What the case is about. We had numerous disputes on this topic in 2024, and we won them all! The cases involved unfair counterparties from unfriendly countries who failed to fulfill their contractual obligations amounting to millions of rubles.
Why this is important for practice. The strategy of such counterparties is a well-structured approach to avoid fulfilling their obligations. Lawyers need to monitor both sanctions law and the existing contracts.
Our achievements. Unconditional victories in several cases.
4. Topic: Resignation by Own Will
What the case is about. A complex dispute arose regarding how the plaintiff submitted a resignation letter to the Client, citing intentionally created unfavorable working conditions, pressure exerted on her, and ongoing discriminatory actions without specifying particular circumstances or involved parties, which led to an internal investigation. The plaintiff was dismissed by her own will after the legislatively regulated period, but she immediately went to court demanding reinstatement and compensation for the time of forced absence from work.
Why this is important for practice. The case sets a precedent for all disputes where employers dismiss employees later than the two-week period after a resignation letter is submitted.
Our achievements. The uniqueness of the project lies in the fact that the employer indeed dismissed the employee more than two weeks later based on an order. At the same time, this delay was related to examining the plaintiff's arguments regarding alleged discriminatory actions by the employer. Our task was to prove that the employer had the right to request information from the plaintiff about specific facts of discrimination mentioned in her statement and not to proceed with the dismissal to avoid future accusations of discrimination and coercion of the employee to resign. We achieved results – the court denied the claim.
5. Topic: Payment of Average Earnings for Time of Forced Absence
What the case is about. A former employee of the Client filed a lawsuit demanding monetary compensation for non-compliance with a court decision regarding payment of average earnings for the time of forced absence from work. The plaintiff referred to the new edition of Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Constitutional Court Ruling No. 16-P dated April 11, 2023, and Constitutional Court Ruling No. 15-P dated April 4, 2024, which indicated the right to apply the compensation mechanism provided for in Article 236 of the Labor Code.
Why this is important for practice. This court decision serves as a precedent for similar cases regarding compensation for delays in executing court decisions on payments for forced absence from work.
Our achievements. We managed to prove in court that the aforementioned rulings of the Constitutional Court are not applicable to this dispute. We also demonstrated in court that the material liability of the employer for non-compliance with a legally binding court decision under Article 236 of the Labor Code was not provided for at the time of the disputed relationship, and the average earnings awarded to the plaintiff for the time of forced absence do not relate to payments due to be calculated by the employer for an employee after dismissal or within established payment periods for employees.
We work and win!
What the case is about. The plaintiff approached the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia (FAS) and subsequently the court with a request to recognize the actions of two legal entities producing television programs for the Client as illegal, claiming that they violated antimonopoly legislation. These entities created cycles of television programs for the Client that were broadcast on the Client's channel. The plaintiff believed that their television programs were similar in both meaningful and visual content, perceived by viewers as the same programs created in the same genre – courtroom shows – and constituted "clone programs."
Why this is important for practice. This case was the first to consider a dispute over television program formats from the perspective of antimonopoly legislation in the context of whether the activity of creating television programs that are similar to the point of confusion with those of another producer constitutes a violation of antimonopoly legislation.
Our achievements. With the involvement of the Legal Bureau, the case was won not only at FAS but also in both the first instance and appellate courts. The Omega Legal Bureau is an expert in format rights, as representatives of the company were directly involved in the first case in Russia concerning format rights protection (Gestmusic Endemol vs. Channel One), and for many decades, the company has maintained and developed a high level of qualification on these issues. The decision sets a precedent for all disputes related to the protection of television program format rights.
2. Topic: Photo Trolls
What the case is about. The plaintiff is a professional troll who files mass claims regarding photographic works that have been reproduced, made public, and adapted on the Internet. The complexity of the dispute lies in the fact that almost 100% of such claims are satisfied by courts.
Why this is important for practice. The victory in this case demonstrated that it is possible to find effective mechanisms in such disputes that deny claims from plaintiffs abusing their rights. A number of arguments regarding successful defense strategies were discussed at the Round Table titled "Demanding Disproportionate Compensation for Violations of Exclusive Rights: Abuse or Prevention of Recidivism?" as part of the Copyright School, a branded event organized by the Omega Legal Bureau (held with the support of the Ministry of Digital Development of the Russian Federation).
Our achievements. The victory in this case marked a significant opportunity to win against procedural trolls and explore further pathways to address the issue of protecting the interests of good-faith rights holders. Previously, victories in such disputes seemed almost impossible.
3. Topic: Unfair Counterparties from Unfriendly Countries
What the case is about. We had numerous disputes on this topic in 2024, and we won them all! The cases involved unfair counterparties from unfriendly countries who failed to fulfill their contractual obligations amounting to millions of rubles.
Why this is important for practice. The strategy of such counterparties is a well-structured approach to avoid fulfilling their obligations. Lawyers need to monitor both sanctions law and the existing contracts.
Our achievements. Unconditional victories in several cases.
4. Topic: Resignation by Own Will
What the case is about. A complex dispute arose regarding how the plaintiff submitted a resignation letter to the Client, citing intentionally created unfavorable working conditions, pressure exerted on her, and ongoing discriminatory actions without specifying particular circumstances or involved parties, which led to an internal investigation. The plaintiff was dismissed by her own will after the legislatively regulated period, but she immediately went to court demanding reinstatement and compensation for the time of forced absence from work.
Why this is important for practice. The case sets a precedent for all disputes where employers dismiss employees later than the two-week period after a resignation letter is submitted.
Our achievements. The uniqueness of the project lies in the fact that the employer indeed dismissed the employee more than two weeks later based on an order. At the same time, this delay was related to examining the plaintiff's arguments regarding alleged discriminatory actions by the employer. Our task was to prove that the employer had the right to request information from the plaintiff about specific facts of discrimination mentioned in her statement and not to proceed with the dismissal to avoid future accusations of discrimination and coercion of the employee to resign. We achieved results – the court denied the claim.
5. Topic: Payment of Average Earnings for Time of Forced Absence
What the case is about. A former employee of the Client filed a lawsuit demanding monetary compensation for non-compliance with a court decision regarding payment of average earnings for the time of forced absence from work. The plaintiff referred to the new edition of Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Constitutional Court Ruling No. 16-P dated April 11, 2023, and Constitutional Court Ruling No. 15-P dated April 4, 2024, which indicated the right to apply the compensation mechanism provided for in Article 236 of the Labor Code.
Why this is important for practice. This court decision serves as a precedent for similar cases regarding compensation for delays in executing court decisions on payments for forced absence from work.
Our achievements. We managed to prove in court that the aforementioned rulings of the Constitutional Court are not applicable to this dispute. We also demonstrated in court that the material liability of the employer for non-compliance with a legally binding court decision under Article 236 of the Labor Code was not provided for at the time of the disputed relationship, and the average earnings awarded to the plaintiff for the time of forced absence do not relate to payments due to be calculated by the employer for an employee after dismissal or within established payment periods for employees.
We work and win!