MOSCOW, July 26 (RAPSI) – The 9th Commercial Court of Appeals had set the examination of a claim lodged by Cyprus-based company UCF Partners Limited seeking to recover 461.4 million rubles (about $690,000) from OOO Edil-Import (Internet store Holodilnik.ru) as a compensation for infringement on exclusive rights for audiovisual works for August 22, the Tuesday court records read.

The Cypriot company has appealed against the Moscow Commercial Court decision of April 13 to reject its claim.

The Court of Appeals has found that in order to determine the relevant proof it was necessary to subpoena OOO Kontrapunto as a non-party in the dispute.

According to the plaintiff, it is the owner of rights for audiovisual works in the form of 5-second-long advertising clips. As the plaintiff has noted, the defendant placed these clips for airing on various Russian TV channels in the period from July to November of 2013 in the framework of an advertisement campaign of Holodilnik.ru online retailer.

The defendant’s counsel has maintained that the Cypriot firm had failed to prove that it was the exclusive owner of rights for disputed clips, and the fact that the defendant had placed the disputed advertisements on federal TV programs.

The defendant also insisted that the plaintiff failed to present documented information on the number of times the clips had been aired, thus rendering it impossible to calculate the amount of compensation. Yet another argument put forward by the defense was the fact that the founder of the company participating in the creation of the disputed clips, which is a third party in the case, is the spouse of the UCF Partners Limited general representative in Russia; therefore, according to the defendant’s counsel, the claim was an abuse of rights on the part of the plaintiff.

The defendant believes that by lodging the claim the plaintiff has attempted to recover compensation for the alleged infringement on the rights for disputed clips, for the placement of which a third party (founded by the spouse of the plaintiff’s representative in Russia) was responsible in accordance with an agreement made with the defendant.