The advantages of working with us:

A strong team of practicing lawyers

Possibility of solving difficult issues

Comprehensibility of conducting business

Transparency of pricing

Excellent correlation price-quality

Openness for clients

Possibility of distant collaboration

Guarantee of the financial quality of the rendered services

24-hour access to the information on projects


A professional team consisting of 15 people

Over 8 years of law practice

Providing with legal services for more than 20 directions of law

Over 500 of successfully realized projects

Over 300 of satisfied clients

"For my dogs" vs. "Limargy"

“For my dogs” LLC brought an action against “Limargy” LLC at the Commercial Court of Moscow on the protection of the exclusive rights. The Claimant stated that the clothes for pets distributed by “Limargy” LLC contains the features of the products similar to those of “For my dogs” LLC what violates his rights to the registered pattern. Moreover, “Formydogs” LLC complained about unfair competition on the part of the Defendant.

The Claimant pleaded for termination of unfair competition and forrestrain to Defendant`s right to sell the clothes for dogs.

The Defendant`s representatives (i.e. “YurBureau” LLC) had carried outanon-judicial expertise in advance that evidenced the absence of the features of the products similar to those of “Formydogs” LLC in the  “Limargy” LLC items. This was reported in the statement of defense.

In the first-instance court the Claimant was being quite passive without even suggestion of a judicial expertise. When the judgment dismissing the claims in full was delivered the Claimant was not even present

Not with standing the apparentness of its wrongness “Formydogs” LLChas applied for the review of the judgment in the appeal.  Its main argument was the denial of the first-instance court to involve Federal Anti-Monopoly Service as a third party. This procedural step was essential due to the fact that the dispute was related to the unfair competition, and therefore there were ground for application of par 21 of The Statement № 30 of the Plenum of the Higher Commercial Court of the Russian Federation "On some questions arising during enforcement antimonopoly legislation by arbitration courts” as of 30.06.2008.

In the statement of defense “YurBureau” LLC has pointed to the absence of the necessity to involve Federal Anti-Monopoly Service as a third party since initially the dispute had only been related to the exclusive rights protection and the claims as to the unfair competition had only been of supplementary nature. 

After the statement of defense was sent to the Claimant the nolle prosequi notice was submitted to Court and approve, therefore the matter was dismissed.

At the moment we are going to recover the judicial costs form the Claimant since “Limargy” LLC was involved into the case fully unfoundedly.