Home / Russia / Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property

In today’s knowledge economy, a large part of the value of your business is based on intangible assets and goodwill. Your intellectual property plays a key role in obtaining a competitive advantage. A cohesive IP strategy, including both commercialisation and enforcement, will ensure you get maximum value from your portfolio. With 150 specialist lawyers in 33 countries, we understand your business needs and have worked with some of the best-known brands, from banks to tech and media companies, pharmaceuticals and FMCG companies. This industry-specific approach can help you realise your commercial goals.

The right brands will win the hearts and minds of your customers. The right patents will prevent others exploiting your ideas or provide a substantial barrier to market access. Copyright, know-how and designs also play a vital role. We focus on key sectors relevant to you such as Life sciences & healthcare, automotive, machinery, manufacturing, consumer products, financial services and TMC. This means you get in-depth industry knowledge as well as legal expertise for the protection of your IP. If you are involved in a dispute, we can guide you through the litigation process.


Rights to geo­graph­ic­al in­dic­a­tions soon to be pro­tec­ted through the Rus­si­an...
Ef­fect­ive 6 March 2023, rights hold­ers will be able to re­quest that geo­graph­ic­al in­dic­a­tions be in­cluded* in the Rus­si­an Cus­toms Re­gister of In­tel­lec­tu­al Prop­erty (the “TROIS”). In­clud­ing in­tel­lec­tu­al...
SEAM­LESS Leg­al re­cog­nised by Pravo-300 2022
We are more than happy to share our first re­cog­ni­tion as SEAM­LESS Leg­al by the na­tion­al rank­ing Pravo.ru-300. This year SEAM­LESS Leg­al has earned 17 re­cog­ni­tions, in­clud­ing Band 1 award for the In­sur­ance...
Mark­ing goods for mar­ket­places: changes from 1 March 2023
On 1 March 2023, amend­ments* to Rus­si­an Gov­ern­ment De­cree No. 1956* (the “De­cree”) dated 31 Decem­ber 2019 will come in­to force, reg­u­lat­ing the mark­ing of cer­tain light in­dustry goods.The changes will, among oth­er things, af­fect the activ­it­ies of eCo­m­merce ag­greg­at­ors.Gen­er­al in­form­a­tionThe De­cree es­tab­lishes a goods mark­ing sys­tem and a goods cir­cu­la­tion con­trol sys­tem in­volving the fol­low­ing ob­lig­a­tions: (a) re­gis­ter­ing in the state in­form­a­tion sys­tem for mon­it­or­ing the cir­cu­la­tion of goods sub­ject to man­dat­ory mark­ing (the “Mon­it­or­ing Sys­tem”); (b) mark­ing goods from the es­tab­lished list* of goods with an iden­ti­fic­a­tion code ob­tained through the Mon­it­or­ing Sys­tem; and (c) trans­mit­ting in­form­a­tion on the move­ment of these goods to the Mon­it­or­ing Sys­tem.The Mon­it­or­ing Sys­tem al­lows the track­ing of goods from their re­lease on the mar­ket to their sale to end cus­tom­ers.Chan­gesStart­ing from 1 March 2023, the scope of en­tit­ies that have to com­ply with the re­quire­ments on mark­ing and use of the Mon­it­or­ing Sys­tem will change, namely the re­quire­ments will ap­ply to: (a) en­tit­ies act­ing on the basis of com­mis­sion agree­ments; and (b) own­ers of ag­greg­at­ors of in­form­a­tion on goods or ser­vices.An ag­greg­at­or own­er is un­der­stood to be a com­pany that provides con­sumers with an op­por­tun­ity in re­la­tion to a cer­tain product at the same time to:fa­mil­i­ar­ise them­selves with the seller’s of­fer to con­clude an agree­ment for the pur­chase and sale of goods;con­clude an agree­ment for the pur­chase and sale of goods with the seller; an­dpay for the goods in ad­vance in cash or by trans­fer­ring the money to the own­er of the ag­greg­at­or.Thus, if a plat­form’s busi­ness meets the above cri­ter­ia of an ag­greg­at­or, then mark­ing pro­cesses will have to be im­ple­men­ted to com­ply with the new rules.For ex­ample, if a mar­ket­place buys goods from a seller and sells them in­de­pend­ently, sells goods un­der a com­mis­sion agree­ment or sells its own goods, it is sub­ject to reg­u­la­tion and must re­port to the Mon­it­or­ing Sys­tem. However, if the func­tions of the mar­ket­place are lim­ited to provid­ing in­form­a­tion and the seller con­ducts the sale dir­ectly, the re­quire­ments do not ap­ply.The amend­ments also al­low traders to enter in­form­a­tion on the goods’ cir­cu­la­tion in­to the Mon­it­or­ing Sys­tem them­selves or to have an­oth­er per­son or en­tity do so on their be­half. In prac­tice, this means that a seller selling goods on a mar­ket­place may con­trac­tu­ally in­struct the mar­ket­place to trans­mit in­form­a­tion to the Mon­it­or­ing Sys­tem on its be­half.Re­com­mend­a­tion­sThe changes to the De­cree af­fect the ap­plic­ab­il­ity of the reg­u­la­tions re­lated to the mark­ing of goods to cer­tain mar­ket­places. We re­com­mend that mar­ket­places ana­lyse their cur­rent busi­ness pro­cesses and as­sess the ap­plic­ab­il­ity of the mark­ing re­quire­ments to their busi­ness mod­el.* In Rus­si­an
On­line ad­vert­ising in Rus­sia: all you need to know about new rules of la­belling
New rules for on­line ad­vert­ising came in­to force in Septem­ber 2022. Here you can find our de­tailed re­view of the most im­port­ant changes.Join us on 2 Decem­ber 2022 to dis­cuss to­geth­er with our ex­perts...
Ex­perts have dis­cussed changes in ad­vert­ising in­dustry reg­u­la­tion
On 20 Oc­to­ber 2022, SEAM­LESS Leg­al held its second an­nu­al Ad­vert­ising Law con­fer­ence in Mo­scow with par­ti­cip­a­tion of the rep­res­ent­at­ives of the Fed­er­al An­ti­mono­poly Ser­vice, as­so­ci­ations, ma­jor ad­vert­isers...
Per­son­al data: sweep­ing changes in reg­u­la­tion
Please join our we­bin­ar on re­cent im­port­ant changes in the reg­u­la­tion of data pro­tec­tion in Rus­sia. Join our ex­perts Ir­ina Shur­mina and Vladis­lav Eltovskiy to learn about:Ex­tra­ter­rit­ori­al ap­plic­a­tion...
On­line ad­vert­ising: new rules from 1 Septem­ber 2022
On 1 Septem­ber 2022, amend­ments* to Fed­er­al Law No 38 “On Ad­vert­ising” dated 13 March 2006 (the “Law”) will come in­to force. The Law will be sup­ple­men­ted by art­icle 18.1 on on­line ad­vert­ising...
Li­ab­il­ity for non-com­pli­ance with the Land­ing Law
4 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.
Бизнес-завтрак Seam­less & MICE
Визуалы, слоганы, сценарии, не выигравшие в тендере, вдруг реализуются конкурентом… Присвоение контента – давняя...
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.
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."