Letonia / Casos nacionales
SKC-2/2025, civil case C30575718
Casos nacionales. La inclusión en esta ficha no convierte una referencia extranjera en una decisión nacional. Se conserva el estado y el alcance de la fuente.
Expediente y fuentes
- Nombre
- SKC-2/2025, civil case C30575718
- Cita
- ECLI:LV:AT:2025:0513.C30575718.22.S
- Tribunal
- Senate of the Supreme Court of Latvia (Augstākā tiesa)
- Instancia
- última instancia
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2025-05-13
- Presentación
- 2017-01-09
- first instance
- 2020-03-06
- Recurso
- 2021-11-17
- cassation admitted
- 2022-07-04
- Estado
- resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
- Resultado
- The Senate rejected requests concerning the 18 October 2021 procedural ruling, vacated the 17 November 2021 judgment insofar as it dismissed claims and awarded costs, remanded that portion and refunded EUR 300 security; nonappealable.
- Resumen
- Copyright was not the claim and could not be adjudicated. Organisational activity and investment may ground a broadcaster's related right in a broadcast under sections 47 and 53, but cannot ground copyright, which requires creative activity by a natural person.
- Antecedentes
- Russian Teledistribucija sued Russian Kinomania.TV in litigation centered on non-use and revocation of Multimania marks. The initial multi-claim intellectual-property action was severed; copyright was not pleaded as the object of this cassation.
- Historia procesal
- Claims were filed on 9 January 2017 and severed on 24 May 2018. The first instance cancelled marks on 6 March 2020; Riga Regional Court partly cancelled and partly dismissed on 17 November 2021. Cassation was admitted only for the dismissed claims and costs on 4 July 2022.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Whether organisational activity and investment in broadcasting had been treated as a source of copyright, and what parts of the trademark judgment and costs survived cassation.
- Criterio
- Copyright was not the claim and could not be adjudicated. Organisational activity and investment may ground a broadcaster's related right in a broadcast under sections 47 and 53, but cannot ground copyright, which requires creative activity by a natural person.
- Fundamento decisivo
- The judgment distinguishes the statutory object and basis of broadcasting neighbouring rights from authorial copyright and rejects the contention that the lower court awarded or transferred an author's rights. Its principal reasoning otherwise concerns trademark-use evidence.
- Límites
- The copyright passage is ancillary to a trademark dispute, not an adjudication of subsistence in any specific work and not an AI or synthetic-fixation case.
- Relevancia
- doctrina-general
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- High court, but only narrow persuasive weight for the copyright/related-right boundary because copyright was outside the pleaded object. Integración/votación: Reporting senator Zane Pētersone; senators Normunds Salenieks and Marika Senkāne; Civil Cases Department; written proceedings. Three judges are identified; no numerical vote, dissent or separate opinion is published, and unanimity is not inferred.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- SKC-2/2025, civil case C30575718
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Senate of the Supreme Court of Latvia (Augstākā tiesa)
- Tipo
- national Supreme Court trademark judgment containing an ancillary copyright/related-rights boundary; non-AI
- Tipo de evidencia
- complete_primary_judgment_official_intergovernmental_reproduction
- Localizador
- paras. 1-7, 22-22.2.2, 25-26 and operative part
- Verificación documentada
- Sí