Can money ever cure the pain?

Not pleased with Intel
"Last spring I received a plaintive cry for help from an IP firm in Uzbekistan who had been sued by Intel over their use of the use of the name IntellSphere Group in relation to the provision of intellectual property protection services in Uzbekistan". With these words, veteran Canadian raconteur, scholar, practitioner and good old-fashioned gentleman Dan Bereskin had this Kat hooked. How could he not read on? Continued Dan: "I wasn't able to help except to encourage them to fight, and now they've evidently succeeded, but at substantial cost and pain. I've suggested to them that your readers might be interested".

This, in short, is what happened, according to IntellSphere's Alena Menyaylova and Eugene Mazo:
"We are pleased to inform you that the litigation in Intel Corporation, US v IntellSphere Group, UZ, which lasted for one and a third years, has reached a satisfactory outcome. Our firm, IntellSphere Group, provides IP protection services in Uzbekistan [and there are not many people who can say that, notes Merpel]. For reasons that defy our comprehension [and ours], Intel Corp. claimed that our use of our name would cause confusion with their goods, services and business in Uzbekistan. A court decision in our favour was issued in March 2013. Now the term within which it may be contested has expired. In the decision particularly it is set forth that the business activities of Intel Corporation and our company do not cross paths. No surprise.

It was difficult time for us, full of emotion, problems, numerous court sessions (first instance, appeals instance, Supreme Court of Appeal) and, of course, a lot of expense. But we held out against the Machine and now are happy because we’ve been in a struggle for the sake of our name.

Perhaps a whip-round?
Currently we have in our hands a writ of execution ordering Intel Corporation to reimburse our expenses arisen during this litigate. We are preparing the document to be sent to Intel. We expect they will pay those expenses which can be calculated. But how about our spiritual injury? How does one calculate it? Of course, we understand that this Giant can crush anybody, we guess Intel’s annual turnover is more than the state budget of the whole of Uzbekistan [the IPKat can answer this: last year, Intel's revenue was US$ 53.3 billion; Uzbekistan's gross domestic product in the same year was indeed lower, at US$ 51.1 billion]. Intel caused us a lot of pain and anguish as a result of this unjustified and expensive litigation.

If anyone has any ideas on how we can claim for the spiritual harm their bullying caused us, we'd be glad to hear".
Says the IPKat, let's hear from readers with constructive suggestions, or alternatively witty and enjoyable ones, as to how Intel can be made to pay for the spiritual pain of his two Uzbek comrades-at-arms.

Merpel adds: IntellSphere is to be congratulated for sticking to its principles.  Intel has provided fuel for the fire that warms the proposition that it is a bit of a bully, and she does not suppose that its apparent attempt to secure an overwide degree of protection for the prefix "intel-" has not won it many friends. She also notes that the Russian IP practice of Intels, founded in 1988 [that's 20 years after Intel], has branches is Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, Kazakhstan and -- you guessed it -- Uzbekistan.
Can money ever cure the pain? Can money ever cure the pain? Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, October 03, 2013 Rating: 5


  1. How about an all expenses paid trip for the entire firm to Vegas to watch the Blue Man Group? Its the least they could do.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.