The term for filing an appeal against a decision in a trade mark application grant procedure will be 4 months from the date of its issuance, instead of 3 months from the date of its receipt, as the law currently prescribes (Art. 1500). Serbia Gordana Pavlovic, Cabinet Pavlovic, Belgrade and Brussels Observations are officially mentioned in the new version of the Russian Civil Code. According to Art. 1493, any person can file an observation in relation to any published trade mark application before the issuance of the final decision. Registration of a trade mark in respect of the similar goods and services is prohibited if it contains company name, trade name or commercial designation of another person (Art. 1483). Currently, a third party is entitled to base its cancellation action on the company name right, whereas the examiners at the Russian PTO cannot use that provision during the trade mark examination. As soon as the new version of the Civil Code comes into effect, the examiners at the Russian PTO will be able to issue office actions or decisions on the basis of prior company names, trade names or commercial designations. The Russian PTO will conduct substantive examination of utility model applications, instead of using the current utility model registration system (Art. 1390). The term of validity of a patent for an industrial design will be reduced to 5 years from the current 15 years. It can be further extended, in increments of 5 years, but it cannot exceed 25 years (Art. 1363). The scope of protection for industrial designs will be based on their images, and not on the list of their essential features (Art. 1358). Under current regulations, the IP owner does not need to prove the fault of the infringer in civil proceedings. In administrative proceedings, it depends on the case and the court, while in criminal proceedings there is a need to prove fault in all circumstances. Under the amendments, the IP owner will have to prove the fault of an infringer, particularly physical persons. Legal entities and individual entrepreneurs will be liable for IP infringement, even if their fault is not proven, unless the infringement arises as a result of vis major (Art. 1250). licensor has no right to use an IP right in the same way as granted to a licensee unless otherwise agreed on in the license agreement (Art. 1236). and sold sneakers similar to Skechers’ Shape-Ups sneakers, for trade mark and copyright infringement, as well as unfair competition. Safran requested that Skechers deposit security for litigation costs, arguing that Skechers does not have a presence in Serbia and that there was a risk that the company would not reimburse Safran’s litigation costs if Safran won the case (the United States is not a member of the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure, which provides for free access to the courts). Skechers refused to deposit security for litigation costs and invoked the 1881 Treaty on Commerce between Serbia and the United States. The treaty provides, among other things, that citizens of Serbia and the United States are to have full reciprocity and access to the courts. Skechers argued that, therefore, it did • Gordana Pavlovic, Cabinet Pavlovic, Belgrade and Brussels Serbia that the 1881 Treaty on Commerce between the United States and Serbia is in force and must be complied with until it is terminated or suspended following a specially prescribed procedure. With the enactment of the new Law on Seats and Jurisdictions of the Courts and Public Prosecutor Offices and the amendments to the Law on the Organisation of the Courts which came into force on 1 January 2014, Serbia has made a step towards the introduction of more specialised IP courts. not have to deposit money as security for litigation costs. Safran countered that the treaty is no longer applicable, because there is no factual reciprocity. The Court of First Instance refused Safran’s request. Safran appealed, and the Appellate Court referred the matter back to the Court of First Instance, instructing it to seek the opinion of the Ministry of Justice. The ministry responded that the 1881 treaty is in force, but that there is no factual reciprocity between the United States and Serbia, because Serbian citizens in the United States are required to deposit security for litigation costs when suing in a state in which they do not have residence. Until 1 January 2014, IP cases where both parties were undertakings were in the competence of the Commercial Courts (until 2008, the Commercial Courts were called District Commercial Courts). Where at least one of the parties was an individual, IP cases were in the competence of the High Courts (which were called District Courts until 2008). There are currently 16 Commercial Courts and 26 High Courts in Serbia. These courts rule on a wide variety of matters, and judges rarely get an opportunity to specialise in IP matters. On 9 November 2010 Skechers, a famous US shoe company, sued Safran, a Serbian company which imported Although judgments and decisions in Serbia do not set precedents, they do serve as guidance for judges for future cases. The above decision of the Appellate Court regarding the payment of security for litigation costs is significant because it recognises: • the right of a US company to sue in Serbia without depositing security for litigation costs, even when the company does not have a presence in Serbia; and 4 The Appellate Court then refused Safran's request that Skechers deposit security for litigation costs. The decision is final. The Court of First Instance ordered Skechers to deposit security. Skechers then appealed, arguing that Serbia and the United States are bound to respect the 1881 treaty until it is revoked by a special procedure provided for by the treaty. Further, Skechers argued that the United States does comply with the treaty and invoked a US Supreme Court decision in which the court explicitly held that the treaty must be respected. With the reorganisation of the court system which came into effect on 1 January 2014, all IP cases are concentrated in the Commercial Court or the High Court of Belgrade, respectively. Although the Commercial Court and the High Court are not specialised IP courts as such, the concentration of all IP cases in these courts will enable judges to hear a much larger number of IP cases and become more specialised in IP matters over time. This is similar to the situation in Slovenia and Hungary, where all IP cases are in the competence of the courts located in Ljubljana and Budapest, respectively. IP cases which were instituted before any of the Commercial Courts (or High Courts, respectively) outside of Belgrade, and were still pending on 1 January 2014, were transferred to the Commercial Court (or High Court, respectively) in Belgrade. The exceptions are IP cases pending before the Appellate Courts, which will be decided by the courts where the appeals were initially filed. The change in the legislation did not affect the organisation of the Administrative Court, which is the body in charge of administrative disputes involving decisions of the Patent and Trade mark Office. There is one Administrative Court for the entire territory of Serbia with its seat in Belgrade, and three offices in Kragujevac, Nis and Novi Sad.