Though less often than before, one still occasionally finds articles kicking Russia for inadequate performance in enforcement of IP rights. But a good illustration of strong enforcement is a recent judgment that, though it dismissed the prosecutor's demand to bring the infringer to justice, will hardly be criticised.

A district prosecutor of the city of Arkhangelsk (in the north of Russia) initiated an administrative case in court against an individual entrepreneur. Administrative prosecution involves the state against the infringer and ends up with imposing a fine on the infringer and confiscation of the infringing goods. The court dismissed the claim of the prosecutor and merely reprimanded the infringer. The prosecutor appealed to the second instance court. However the court of appeal maintained the decision of the first instance. Undaunted by failure, the prosecutor appealed to the court of cassation.

The court of cassation examined the case in its entirety and found that the entrepreneur was selling adidas-marked products without the approval of the trade mark owner. The police organised a raid, seized the goods in the presence of witnesses and drew an infringement report. The prosecutor conducted an investigation in respect of the infringement and initiated a case against the entrepreneur. The courts of the two instances dismissed the case.

The cassation court upheld the decision of the lower courts and ruled that even though the courts recognised that the infringement had taken place the infringer should be released from liability due to the insignificant character of the case. It remains only to say that the court case which lasted during several months concerned two pairs of socks at $0.60 a pair. The court correctly concluded that the administrative bodies (police and prosecutor) should not only establish the formal act of infringement but they should also measure the public importance and the social danger of the act. Also, it was the first time that the entrepreneur committed the infringement. Those adidas socks were found by chance inside a package of other socks and the entrepreneur repented what she had done.

Coincidentally, another court in the same city of Arkhangelsk at about the same time in similar circumstances fined another infringer and confiscated again two pairs of socks (Nike and Chanel). Coincidental in substance but not in form are actions of the Russian Customs from Krasnoyarsk (Siberia) who stopped a lady carrying just one Burberry dress from China.

Who can compete with Russian police and Customs in fighting trade mark infringement?

Vladimir Biriulin

Gorodissky & Partners
Russia 129010, Moscow
B. Spasskaya Str
25, stroenie 3
Tel: +7 495 937 6116 / 6109
Fax: +7 495 937 6104 / 6123
pat@gorodissky.ru
www.gorodissky.com