Exit re­stric­tions for for­eign in­vestors in cer­tain Rus­si­an in­vest­ment pro­jects
Dir­ect or in­dir­ect trans­ac­tions with shares, par­ti­cip­at­ory in­terests, rights and ob­lig­a­tions in re­la­tion to cer­tain Rus­si­an en­tit­ies and owned by for­eign per­sons or en­tit­ies re­lated to “un­friendly states”...
CRE-100: Artashes Ogan­ov among the best com­mer­cial real es­tate law­yers
5 Au­gust 2022
Li­ab­il­ity for non-com­pli­ance with the Land­ing Law
4 Au­gust 2022
Tax­a­tion of e-ser­vices: back to ba­sics
1 Au­gust 2022
Per­son­al data: sweep­ing changes in reg­u­la­tion
On 1 Septem­ber 2022, amend­ments* to Fed­er­al Law No. 152 on Per­son­al Data (the “Per­son­al Data Law”) and amend­ments* to Fed­er­al Law No. 2300-1 on the Pro­tec­tion of Con­sumer Rights (the “Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Law”) will come in­to force.The ad­op­ted amend­ments sig­ni­fic­antly change the Per­son­al Data Law: new ob­lig­a­tions of data con­trol­lers have been in­tro­duced and ex­ist­ing ones amended, the scope of the Per­son­al Data Law has been ex­pan­ded, new pro­ced­ures for ap­prov­al and no­ti­fic­a­tion of state bod­ies on the pro­cessing of per­son­al data have ap­peared.In its new ver­sion, the Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Law pro­hib­its re­fus­al to con­clude con­tracts with con­sumers if they re­fuse to provide per­son­al data that is not re­lated to the per­form­ance of such a con­tract.Be­low we provide an ana­lys­is of the main changes to the Per­son­al Data Law and the Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Law.Scope of the Per­son­al Data Law­Be­fore the amend­ments come in­to force, the ex­tra-ter­rit­ori­al prin­ciple of ap­ply­ing the Per­son­al Data Law (i.e. the ob­lig­a­tion for for­eign com­pan­ies to com­ply with it) form­ally relates only to per­son­al data loc­al­isa­tion re­quire­ments.Un­der the new pro­vi­sions of the Per­son­al Data Law, for­eign leg­al en­tit­ies and in­di­vidu­als are also re­quired to com­ply fully with this law when pro­cessing per­son­al data of Rus­si­an cit­izens on the basis of a con­tract or with the con­sent of such a cit­izen.We re­com­mend that for­eign com­pan­ies whose activ­it­ies are aimed at Rus­si­an cit­izens as­sess the ap­plic­ab­il­ity of the Per­son­al Data Law to their activ­it­ies and bring them in­to com­pli­ance with the Per­son­al Data Law.Pro­cessing of per­son­al data for the per­form­ance of a con­tractThe amend­ments im­pose cer­tain re­stric­tions on the pro­cessing of per­son­al data based on the per­form­ance of a con­tract. Thus, the con­tract to be con­cluded may not con­tain pro­vi­sions which:lim­it the rights and freedoms of the sub­ject;es­tab­lish cases in which the per­son­al data of a minor is pro­cessed (un­less oth­er­wise provided for by law); or­al­low mak­ing the con­clu­sion of the con­tract con­di­tion­al on the in­ac­tion of the sub­ject.The amend­ments are worded quite broadly, so we ex­pect that the cri­ter­ia for clas­si­fy­ing a con­trac­tu­al pro­vi­sion as in­ad­miss­ible will be shaped by law en­force­ment prac­tice or the reg­u­lat­or’s cla­ri­fic­a­tions.Nev­er­the­less, at this stage, we re­com­mend re­view­ing cur­rent con­tracts with in­di­vidu­als to en­sure that they com­ply with the new pro­vi­sions of the Per­son­al Data Law.New du­ties and li­ab­il­ity of “pro­cessors”Changes to the Per­son­al Data Law have tightened the re­quire­ments for so-called “pro­cessors” (i.e. per­sons or en­tit­ies who pro­cess per­son­al data on be­half of a con­trol­ler).Thus, in ad­di­tion to the in­form­a­tion pre­vi­ously re­quired, the op­er­at­or’s in­struc­tions must state the fol­low­ing du­ties of the pro­cessor:loc­al­ising Rus­si­an cit­izens’ per­son­al data in Rus­sia when they are col­lec­ted;tak­ing the meas­ures stip­u­lated by Art­icle 18.1 of the Per­son­al Data Law (e.g. ap­point­ing a data pro­tec­tion of­ficer, pub­lish­ing a policy, tak­ing meas­ures to en­sure the se­cur­ity of per­son­al data);provid­ing the con­trol­ler with proof of com­pli­ance with these meas­ures; andno­ti­fy­ing the con­trol­ler of per­son­al data leaks.We re­com­mend check­ing cur­rent agree­ments with pro­cessors and ad­just­ing them to re­flect the amend­ments.In ad­di­tion, the new ver­sion of the Per­son­al Data Law es­tab­lishes that for­eign pro­cessors are li­able to per­son­al data sub­jects dir­ectly and not only through the con­trol­ler.New rules on cross-bor­der trans­fer of per­son­al dataNew cross-bor­der trans­fer rules will come in­to force on 1 March 2023.The new ver­sion of the Per­son­al Data Law tight­ens up the rules for cross-bor­der trans­fers and in­tro­duces a man­dat­ory pri­or no­ti­fic­a­tion to the reg­u­lat­or of the in­ten­tion to trans­fer per­son­al data out­side Rus­sia.The con­trol­ler must as­sess the re­cip­i­ent of per­son­al data by ob­tain­ing, be­fore sub­mit­ting the no­ti­fic­a­tion, the fol­low­ing in­form­a­tion about:the per­sons or en­tit­ies to whom per­son­al data will be trans­ferred;the meas­ures to pro­tect the per­son­al data trans­ferred and the con­di­tions un­der which its pro­cessing may be ter­min­ated; an­dthe leg­al reg­u­la­tion of per­son­al data in the re­cip­i­ent coun­try (if the coun­try is not one that provides ad­equate pro­tec­tion of the rights of per­son­al data sub­jects).​The data con­trol­ler must then no­ti­fy Roskomnad­zor of its in­ten­tion to trans­fer per­son­al data across bor­ders and provide de­tailed in­form­a­tion on the planned trans­fer, in­clud­ing the type and con­tent of the data to be trans­ferred, the cat­egor­ies of data sub­jects, coun­tries where such data will be trans­ferred, etc.Upon re­ceipt of a no­ti­fic­a­tion, Roskomnad­zor has the right to pro­hib­it or re­strict the trans­fer of per­son­al data, inter alia, to pro­tect the mor­als, health, rights and le­git­im­ate in­terests of in­di­vidu­als; pro­tect the found­a­tions of the con­sti­tu­tion­al or­der, se­cur­ity and de­fence of the state; or pro­tect Rus­sia’s eco­nom­ic in­terests.Roskomnad­zor has ten work­ing days from the date of re­ceipt of the no­ti­fic­a­tion to make its de­cision. Pending a de­cision, the con­trol­ler may carry out cross-bor­der trans­fer of per­son­al data to coun­tries that are parties to the Coun­cil of Europe Con­ven­tion No. 108 or in­cluded in Roskomnad­zor’s spe­cial list.Per­son­al data may only be trans­ferred to oth­er coun­tries after the dead­line for a de­cision by Roskomnad­zor has ex­pired and in the ab­sence of a de­cision to ban such trans­fer. If cross-bor­der trans­fer is banned or re­stric­ted, the con­trol­ler must en­sure that the data it has pre­vi­ously trans­ferred is des­troyed in the for­eign coun­try.Con­trol­lers that car­ried out cross-bor­der trans­fers be­fore 1 March 2023 and will con­tin­ue to do so after that date are re­quired to sub­mit a no­ti­fic­a­tion to Roskomnad­zor no later than 1 March 2023.In­ter­ac­tion with Gos­SOP­KAThe new ver­sion of the Per­son­al Data Law also re­quires the con­trol­ler to en­sure in­ter­ac­tion with the State Sys­tem of De­tec­tion, Pre­ven­tion and Elim­in­a­tion of Con­sequences of Com­puter At­tacks on In­form­a­tion Re­sources (Gos­SOP­KA). The aim is to in­form Gos­SOP­KA about com­puter in­cid­ents that have led to the un­law­ful trans­fer of per­son­al data.The pro­ced­ure for in­ter­ac­tion has not been de­term­ined yet and will be es­tab­lished by the Fed­er­al Se­cur­ity Ser­vice of Rus­sia in a sep­ar­ate reg­u­la­tion.Ob­lig­a­tion to no­ti­fy per­son­al data leak­ageIn the event of a leak­age (an un­law­ful or ac­ci­dent­al trans­fer of per­son­al data res­ult­ing in the vi­ol­a­tion of the sub­ject’s rights), the con­trol­ler must no­ti­fy Roskomnad­zor:with­in 24 hours of re­veal­ing such an in­cid­ent about the in­cid­ent and its de­tails; andwith­in 72 hours of the in­cid­ent be­ing dis­covered about the res­ults of the in­tern­al in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to said in­cid­ent and provide in­form­a­tion on the per­sons (if any) whose ac­tions led to the in­cid­ent.At present, the new ver­sion of the Per­son­al Data Law does not con­tain ex­cep­tions to the ob­lig­a­tion to no­ti­fy a leak, but per­haps in the fu­ture cri­ter­ia for minor leak­ages will be de­veloped that will ex­empt any minor un­law­ful or ac­ci­dent­al trans­fer of per­son­al data from the need to be no­ti­fied.At this stage, we re­com­mend in­tro­du­cing rules for in­tern­al leak in­vest­ig­a­tions, es­pe­cially giv­en the short time­frame for ful­filling no­ti­fic­a­tion ob­lig­a­tions to Roskomnad­zor.Pro­cessing of per­son­al data un­der the Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion LawAfter 1 Septem­ber 2022, com­pan­ies will not be al­lowed to re­fuse to con­clude, per­form or ter­min­ate a con­tract if a con­sumer re­fuses to provide their per­son­al data.As an ex­cep­tion, there are cases where the ob­lig­a­tion to provide such data is pre­scribed by law or dir­ectly re­lated to the per­form­ance of the con­tract with the con­sumer.In ad­di­tion, con­sumers are giv­en the right to re­quest in­form­a­tion on the spe­cif­ic reas­ons and leg­al grounds mak­ing it im­possible to con­clude, per­form or ter­min­ate a con­tract without provid­ing per­son­al data.Con­sumers may also re­quest the re­mov­al of pro­vi­sions stip­u­lat­ing the con­di­tions of pro­cessing per­son­al data, and the com­pany must, with­in ten days, make a reasoned de­cision and no­ti­fy the con­sumer about it.The new rules will also ap­ply to con­tracts that were con­cluded be­fore 1 Septem­ber 2022. There­fore, the changes will af­fect in­ter­ac­tion with both new and cur­rent cus­tom­ers.If the in­clu­sion of con­di­tions det­ri­ment­al to the con­sumer’s rights in the con­tract has caused losses, they must be com­pensated in full. In ad­di­tion, in­clu­sion of such con­di­tions in a con­tract may res­ult in an ad­min­is­trat­ive fine of up to RUB 20,000 (EUR 350).We re­com­mend that con­tracts with con­sumers should be re­viewed with re­gard to the pro­vi­sions on the pro­cessing of per­son­al data, the scope of data to be col­lec­ted and how to in­ter­act with con­sumers dur­ing the con­tract­ing and en­quiry hand­ling phases.Oth­er changes­In ad­di­tion to the above changes, the new ver­sion of the Per­son­al Data Law also in­tro­duces a sig­ni­fic­ant num­ber of oth­er changes. We sum­mar­ise some of them be­low:From 1 March 2023, the data con­trol­ler will be re­quired to spe­cify in the per­son­al data pro­cessing policy for each pro­cessing pur­pose:the cat­egor­ies and con­tent of pro­cessed data;the cat­egor­ies of sub­jects whose per­son­al data is pro­cessed;the man­ner and terms of data pro­cessing and stor­age;a pro­ced­ure for des­troy­ing per­son­al data when the pur­pose of its pro­cessing has been achieved or when oth­er le­git­im­ate grounds for do­ing so have aris­en.The list of cases when a con­trol­ler may pro­cess per­son­al data without no­ti­fy­ing Roskomnad­zor of its in­ten­tion to pro­cess per­son­al data has been sub­stan­tially re­duced. In par­tic­u­lar, the pro­cessing of per­son­al data in ac­cord­ance with la­bour law and for the per­form­ance of a con­tract is no longer an ex­cep­tion and will now re­quire the sub­mis­sion of a no­ti­fic­a­tion. Thus, vir­tu­ally any per­son­al data con­trol­ler en­gaged in com­mer­cial activ­it­ies is re­quired to sub­mit a no­ti­fic­a­tion to Roskomnad­zor. In ad­di­tion, the list of in­form­a­tion that must be con­tained in the no­ti­fic­a­tion has changed and a re­quire­ment to provide more de­tailed in­form­a­tion on per­son­al data pro­cessing was in­tro­duced.The amend­ments es­tab­lish ad­di­tion­al cri­ter­ia for con­sent to be not only spe­cif­ic, in­formed and con­scious, but also sub­stant­ive and un­am­bigu­ous.  Ex­plan­a­tions of what is meant by sub­stant­ive and un­am­bigu­ous con­sent are not yet avail­able.The pro­vi­sion of bio­met­ric per­son­al data may not be com­puls­ory, ex­cept in the cases laid down in the Per­son­al Data Law. If the pro­cessing does not fall with­in the ex­cep­tions, the con­trol­ler does not have the right to re­fuse to provide a ser­vice to a per­son who re­fuses to provide bio­met­ric data.The dead­line for re­spond­ing to a sub­ject’s re­quests for ac­cess to in­form­a­tion on per­son­al data pro­cessing and its ter­min­a­tion has been re­duced to ten work­ing days from the sub­ject’s re­quest (the dead­line can be ex­ten­ded by an­oth­er five work­ing days).Thus, al­most all as­pects of per­son­al data pro­cessing are af­fected to a great­er or less­er ex­tent by the changes.Re­com­mend­a­tionsGiv­en the scale of the ad­op­ted changes, al­most every Rus­si­an per­son­al data con­trol­ler needs to as­sess its cur­rent per­son­al data pro­cessing pro­ced­ures and, most likely, ad­just them. In ad­di­tion, for­eign con­trol­lers may be in all like­li­hood sub­ject to Rus­si­an per­son­al data le­gis­la­tion and will be re­quired to com­ply fully with it.In light of the changes ad­op­ted, we re­com­mend that:for­eign con­trol­lers check the cur­rent pro­ced­ures for pro­cessing the data of Rus­si­an cit­izens and as­sess wheth­er Rus­si­an le­gis­la­tion is ap­plic­able;Rus­si­an con­trol­lers audit cur­rent per­son­al data pro­cessing pro­ced­ures and make ap­pro­pri­ate ad­just­ments, in­clud­ing to per­son­al data pro­cessing policies, cross-bor­der trans­fer pro­ced­ures, con­sents, con­tracts provid­ing for data pro­cessing man­dates, and oth­er doc­u­ments and pro­cesses.* In Rus­si­anCo-au­thored by Sher­met Kur­b­an­ov, Paralegal in In­tel­lec­tu­al Prop­erty.
Rus­si­an Min­istry of In­dustry and Trade to have ac­cess to data of re­gis­tra­tion...
The Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent signed Fed­er­al Law No. 311* al­low­ing the Min­istry of Health to provide the Min­istry of In­dustry and Trade with sens­it­ive in­form­a­tion from re­gis­tra­tion dossiers of medi­cines even if the in­form­a­tion is pro­tec­ted as a trade secret. The rel­ev­ant amend­ments to the Fed­er­al Laws “On Com­mer­cial Secrets”* and “On Cir­cu­la­tion of Medi­cines”* will be of­fi­cially pub­lished this week.Pre­vi­ously, in­form­a­tion con­sti­tut­ing a trade secret held by the Min­istry of Health could only be trans­ferred at the re­quest of the courts or the bod­ies re­spons­ible for in­quir­ies and pre­lim­in­ary in­vest­ig­a­tions.This in­form­a­tion will now be trans­ferred to the Min­istry of In­dustry and Trade with­in the frame­work of in­ter­de­part­ment­al in­ter­ac­tion, and the com­pany will be no­ti­fied of the trans­fer. The Min­istry of Health and the Min­istry of In­dustry and Trade will jointly de­term­ine the de­tailed pro­ced­ure for such in­ter­ac­tion.Ac­cord­ing to the amend­ments, the in­form­a­tion can be trans­ferred to the Min­istry of In­dustry and Trade only for li­cens­ing pur­poses or to in­spect medi­cine pro­duc­tion fa­cil­it­ies. However, the new law neither es­tab­lishes con­trol mech­an­isms for such re­stric­tions nor provides any dir­ect sanc­tions for non-com­pli­ance.The above changes do not form­ally af­fect the pro­tec­tion of trade secrets and in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty in Rus­sia. However, in prac­tice, the in­crease in the num­ber of re­cip­i­ents of con­fid­en­tial in­form­a­tion about medi­cines and pro­duc­tion pro­cesses nat­ur­ally in­creases the risk of leak­age.* In Rus­si­anCo-au­thored by Ivan Za­raiskiy, As­so­ci­ate, and Maria Volkodaeva, Paralegal in Life Sci­ences & Health­care.
Бизнес-завтрак Seam­less & MICE
Визуалы, слоганы, сценарии, не выигравшие в тендере, вдруг реализуются конкурентом… Присвоение контента – давняя...
Pro­ced­ure in­tro­duced to trans­fer mar­ket­ing au­thor­isa­tion cer­ti­fic­ates for...
Dur­ing the events of Spring 2022, there were some sig­ni­fic­ant le­gis­lat­ive changes which have not been widely re­por­ted, but are of in­terest to busi­nesses act­ive in the EAEU.One of these changes is the in­tro­duc­tion of a pro­ced­ure for trans­fer­ring a mar­ket­ing au­thor­isa­tion cer­ti­fic­ate for a medi­cine (the “Mar­ket­ing Au­thor­isa­tion”) from one com­pany to an­oth­er. Rel­ev­ant changes were in­tro­duced by EEC Coun­cil De­cision No. 36* to the Rules for Re­gis­tra­tion and Ex­am­in­a­tion of Medi­cines for Med­ic­al Use ap­proved by EEC Coun­cil De­cision No. 78*.The lack of a reg­u­lated pro­ced­ure for trans­fer­ring Mar­ket­ing Au­thor­isa­tions had been a re­cur­ring is­sue of Euras­i­an and Rus­si­an reg­u­la­tion. This com­plic­ated a vari­ety of busi­ness pro­cesses: from in­tra­group re­or­gan­isa­tion to the sale of a product line.This gap in the law has now been filled. To trans­fer a Mar­ket­ing Au­thor­isa­tion, doc­u­ments have to be provided to the rel­ev­ant au­thor­ised bod­ies to jus­ti­fy the trans­fer of the Mar­ket­ing Au­thor­isa­tion and the new hold­er’s abil­ity to ful­fil the ac­quired reg­u­lat­ory re­spons­ib­il­it­ies. In ad­di­tion, some tech­nic­al in­form­a­tion must be provided, in­clud­ing a re­vised phar­ma­covi­gil­ance sys­tem spe­cific­a­tion, up­dated in­form­a­tion for some sec­tions of the dossier and a reg­u­lat­ory doc­u­ment per­tain­ing to qual­ity.At the same time, changes in con­nec­tion with the trans­fer of a Mar­ket­ing Au­thor­isa­tion can be made sim­ul­tan­eously with the pro­ced­ure of bring­ing the re­gis­tra­tion dossier in line with the re­quire­ments of the EAEU.The new Mar­ket­ing Au­thor­isa­tion trans­fer pro­ced­ure makes the Euras­i­an Eco­nom­ic Uni­on’s reg­u­lat­ory space more open for trans­ac­tions with phar­ma­ceut­ic­al as­sets. It also eases the re­or­gan­isa­tion of Euras­i­an busi­nesses, something which has re­cently be­come of in­terest to many for­eign com­pan­ies.* In Rus­si­anCo-au­thored by Ivan Za­raiskiy, As­so­ci­ate, and Maria Volkodaeva, Paralegal in Life Sci­ences & Health­care.
Sim­pli­fied pro­ced­ure for clear­ing trans­ac­tions with the Fed­er­al An­ti­mono­poly...
8 Ju­ly 2022
In­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty: re­cent de­vel­op­ments
Over the past fort­night, there have been sev­er­al im­port­ant de­vel­op­ments in the field of in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty worthy of spe­cial men­tion. They re­late to par­al­lel im­ports and the pro­tec­tion of rights hold­ers from the so-called “un­friendly” states.Change in the reg­u­la­tion of par­al­lel im­portsOn 28 June 2022, the Pres­id­ent signed a law* amend­ing the pro­vi­sions of Fed­er­al Law No. 46 re­lat­ing to the reg­u­la­tion of par­al­lel im­ports.Ini­tially, Fed­er­al Law No. 46 gave the Rus­si­an gov­ern­ment the au­thor­ity to de­term­ine the list of goods al­lowed for par­al­lel im­ports. The gov­ern­ment del­eg­ated the au­thor­ity to is­sue this list to the Min­istry of In­dustry and Trade.In prac­tice, des­pite the ad­op­tion of the list, ques­tions arose about the leg­al pro­tec­tion of those who plan to en­gage in par­al­lel im­ports. Com­pan­ies feared that such meas­ures would not pro­tect them against claims from rights hold­ers.To ad­dress this is­sue, the de­cision was made to in­tro­duce more changes at the le­gis­lat­ive level.The new pro­vi­sions of the law sug­gest that the use of someone else’s in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty will not be an in­fringe­ment if the goods con­tain­ing that in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty are in the list of goods of the Min­istry of In­dustry and Trade per­mit­ted for par­al­lel im­port­a­tion.However, the ad­op­ted amend­ments leave one im­port­ant ques­tion un­answered: to what ex­tent can this reg­u­la­tion ap­ply to coun­ter­feit goods?If we delve deep­er in­to the mean­ing and pur­pose of the par­al­lel im­port­a­tion pro­vi­sions, it be­comes clear that coun­ter­feit goods should still be pro­hib­ited. It is not in the in­terest of the state to en­cour­age such activ­ity, par­tic­u­larly be­cause the pro­du­cers of coun­ter­feit goods will not be re­spons­ible for their prop­er qual­ity and safety, nor will they en­sure their war­ranty ser­vice. Fur­ther­more, the trans­par­ency of such activ­ity for tax pur­poses is at the very least ques­tion­able.This view is sup­por­ted* by, among oth­ers, of­fi­cials stat­ing that the leg­al­isa­tion of par­al­lel im­ports does not im­ply that coun­ter­feit­ing is al­lowed.Thus, tak­ing in­to ac­count the gen­er­al ap­proach of the le­gis­la­tion on this is­sue and the ob­ject­ives of the par­al­lel im­port­a­tion mech­an­ism, we can con­clude that the le­git­im­ate in­terests of rights hold­ers to re­move coun­ter­feit goods from the mar­ket should be pro­tec­ted, even in light of the ad­op­ted amend­ments. The am­bi­gu­ity of some of the word­ing of the new laws can prob­ably be ex­plained by the le­gis­lat­or’s haste rather than its in­ten­tion to leg­al­ise coun­ter­feit goods.Re­versal of the de­cision in the fam­ous “Peppa Pig” case*On 21 June 2022, the Second Com­mer­cial Court of Ap­peal quashed the de­cision of the Kirov Re­gion­al Court in the “Peppa Pig” case and sat­is­fied the rights hold­er’s claim for com­pens­a­tion for in­fringe­ment of its ex­clus­ive rights to a trade­mark.As a re­fresh­er, on 3 March 2022, the Kirov Re­gion­al Com­mer­cial Court dis­missed the claim of a Brit­ish com­pany for trade­mark in­fringe­ment of the im­age of the Peppa Pig char­ac­ter, stat­ing that the very fact that the plaintiff went to court was an ab­use of rights as the com­pany is re­gistered in a state which im­posed sanc­tions against Rus­sia.This case pro­voked much spec­u­la­tion that the in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty of for­eign rights hold­ers is no longer pro­tec­ted in Rus­sia.In a pre­vi­ous alert on the sub­ject, we noted that more re­cent court de­cisions rais­ing the is­sue of the so-called “un­friendly” ori­gin of com­pan­ies did not sup­port the view of the Kirov Re­gion­al Court.The high­er court also dis­agreed and re­viewed the de­cision on ap­peal. In its judg­ment, the court noted that for­eign com­pan­ies, in­clud­ing those re­gistered in the UK, are guar­an­teed to re­ceive equal pro­tec­tion of their in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty in Rus­sia.The ap­pel­late court’s find­ings con­firmed that the de­cision in the Peppa Pig case was the ex­cep­tion rather than the rule, and that pro­tec­tion of in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty rights could not be denied on the sole ground that the com­pany was re­gistered in a state that had im­posed sanc­tions against Rus­sia.* In Rus­si­anCo-au­thored by Sher­met Kur­b­an­ov, Paralegal in In­tel­lec­tu­al Prop­erty.
Anti-mono­poly re­stric­tions on the ex­pan­sion of large re­tail chains to be...
A law* tem­por­ar­ily lift­ing re­stric­tions on large re­tail chains to ex­pand their busi­ness (the “Amend­ments”) has been ad­op­ted.Rus­si­an law* cur­rently pro­hib­its re­tail chains with a mar­ket share of more than 25% from ac­quir­ing or rent­ing ad­di­tion­al re­tail premises. If this pro­hib­i­tion is vi­ol­ated, the trans­ac­tion may be de­clared in­val­id by a court.Ac­cord­ing to the Amend­ments, this re­stric­tion will not ap­ply from 15 June 2022 to 31 Decem­ber 2022 in­clus­ive to ac­quis­i­tions of re­tail chains and leases of space in re­tail fa­cil­it­ies from for­eign com­pan­ies leav­ing the Rus­si­an mar­ket.The ex­emp­tion from the re­stric­tion is val­id if the fol­low­ing con­di­tions are cu­mu­lat­ively met:the re­tail chain to be ac­quired is con­trolled by a for­eign leg­al en­tity; an­dthe own­er of the ac­quired re­tail chain has ceased to op­er­ate in the Rus­si­an mar­ket or de­clared a ces­sa­tion of activ­it­ies.The Amend­ments are de­signed to keep busi­nesses in Rus­sia that have been threatened with clos­ure by al­low­ing large re­tail chains to ac­quire ad­di­tion­al space and fur­ther strengthen their pres­ence in the mar­ket. The changes come in­to force on 15 June 2022.* In Rus­si­anCo-au­thored by Kristina Po­ta­pova, As­so­ci­ate, and Elena An­dri­an­ova, Seni­or As­so­ci­ate.
The former Mo­scow of­fice of CMS to con­tin­ue work­ing as an in­de­pend­ent law...
On 15 June 2022, the former Mo­scow of­fice of the in­ter­na­tion­al law firm CMS an­nounces the start of work as an in­de­pend­ent law firm un­der the new brand name SEAM­LESS Leg­al.Over 80 col­leagues of the Mo­scow of­fice con­tin­ue work­ing as one team, led by Man­aging Part­ner Jean-Fran­cois Mar­quaire and Seni­or Part­ner Le­onid Zubar­ev.We keep ad­vising our cli­ents across all 23 prac­tices and sec­tors: We lean on 30 years of ex­pert­ise and an im­pec­cable repu­ta­tion as part of an in­ter­na­tion­al law firm. We have al­ways abided by strict pro­fes­sion­al stand­ards and will con­tin­ue provid­ing ser­vices of the highest qual­ity. Jean-Fran­cois Mar­quaire, Man­aging Part­ner: “We are proud of hav­ing been able to cre­ate and pre­serve a united team with a friendly cor­por­ate cul­ture and re­spons­ible at­ti­tude to our busi­ness.”Le­onid Zubar­ev, Seni­or Part­ner: “Our new brand SEAM­LESS Leg­al most ac­cur­ately re­flects the ap­proach to work that has de­veloped over the years in our firm – in­teg­rity and co­her­ence, im­pec­cab­il­ity, con­tinu­ity and un­in­ter­rup­ted sup­port to our cli­ents at any time."