This year, our firm represented our clients in various civil court proceedings, many of which our team successfully concluded with positive outcomes. One of these cases involved a copyright infringement dispute.
The client — the owner of the design project for an architectural object (the “Plaintiff”) — developed a monument design (the “Monument”) in 2015. The Defendant, a legal entity, unlawfully obtained the project and illegally used the copyrighted work by constructing, together with a contractor, a structure that fully replicated the Plaintiff’s project in style, design, and architectural solution.
Under the Law “On Copyright and Related Rights”, “copyrights are transferred through copyright agreements and inheritance.” No agreement transferring rights to the Monument design had been concluded between the parties. Nevertheless, the absence of such an agreement did not prevent the Defendant from using someone else’s project.
In court, our team proved that the Plaintiff was the author of the Monument. Our position was supported by documentation confirming the Plaintiff’s authorship. The Defendant, in turn, denied the Plaintiff’s authorship and referred to several documents, but our team demonstrated that these documents were irrelevant to the subject matter of the dispute and that the Defendant failed to provide any evidence refuting the Plaintiff’s authorship.
One of the fundamental principles of copyright law is the presumption of authorship — meaning that the person indicated as the author of the work is presumed to be the author unless proven otherwise. The court applied this principle as one of the bases for upholding the claim.
The Plaintiff also sought compensation from the infringer. It is noteworthy that the Plaintiff presented a sufficient amount of evidence supporting the claimed compensation amount.
The appellate court agreed with the arguments of the first-instance court, as well as with the Plaintiff’s position in its response to the Defendant’s appeal, including the established fact of the infringement.
We would like to emphasize that the court decisions in this case carry significant practical value, as compliance with intellectual property laws is, unfortunately, often neglected in Kazakhstan.
We are always ready to assist our clients in matters involving intellectual property infringements, relying on our extensive positive experience in this field.
The client — the owner of the design project for an architectural object (the “Plaintiff”) — developed a monument design (the “Monument”) in 2015. The Defendant, a legal entity, unlawfully obtained the project and illegally used the copyrighted work by constructing, together with a contractor, a structure that fully replicated the Plaintiff’s project in style, design, and architectural solution.
Under the Law “On Copyright and Related Rights”, “copyrights are transferred through copyright agreements and inheritance.” No agreement transferring rights to the Monument design had been concluded between the parties. Nevertheless, the absence of such an agreement did not prevent the Defendant from using someone else’s project.
In court, our team proved that the Plaintiff was the author of the Monument. Our position was supported by documentation confirming the Plaintiff’s authorship. The Defendant, in turn, denied the Plaintiff’s authorship and referred to several documents, but our team demonstrated that these documents were irrelevant to the subject matter of the dispute and that the Defendant failed to provide any evidence refuting the Plaintiff’s authorship.
One of the fundamental principles of copyright law is the presumption of authorship — meaning that the person indicated as the author of the work is presumed to be the author unless proven otherwise. The court applied this principle as one of the bases for upholding the claim.
The Plaintiff also sought compensation from the infringer. It is noteworthy that the Plaintiff presented a sufficient amount of evidence supporting the claimed compensation amount.
The appellate court agreed with the arguments of the first-instance court, as well as with the Plaintiff’s position in its response to the Defendant’s appeal, including the established fact of the infringement.
We would like to emphasize that the court decisions in this case carry significant practical value, as compliance with intellectual property laws is, unfortunately, often neglected in Kazakhstan.
We are always ready to assist our clients in matters involving intellectual property infringements, relying on our extensive positive experience in this field.