Applicants enjoy continued success in Russian IP disputes

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Applicants enjoy continued success in Russian IP disputes

Sponsored by

gorodissky-400px.png
wu-yi-bfrk9rcohre-unsplash.jpg

Vladimir Biriulin of Gorodissky & Partners looks at why IP owners in Russia are increasingly satisfied with the outcome of disputes

IP owners would have often asked in the past if foreign and domestic businesses were equally treated in courts. In Russia, it is difficult to fathom why this ques tion sprang up once every few months because Russian courts have never differentiated between domestic participants and aliens.

In the meantime, courts were steadily gaining experience in adjudicating IP cases, though nevertheless, sometimes questions were raised in respect of the quality of the judgments.

Now, it seems that the hurdle has been overcome. Courts have accumulated vast experience in examining IP cases, and enforcement of IP is done by the local courts of the first and second instances, as well as by a specialised IP court.

The Supreme Court has recently aired a report showing that most disputes involving IP are solved in favour of IP owners. In common courts, the rate is about 80% in favour of IP owners (in 2020: 618 cases and 462 positive judgments – 75%). The respondents in these disputes are owners of pirate sites and infringers of copyright. The high rate may be explained by the fact that the infringers of this kind in many cases do not take seriously their misdemeanour with the result that the courts hand down most strict judgments against them.

In commercial courts, the rate of victories is even more impressive – in 2020: 22352 cases with 18185 positive judgments – 81%. This is even though that infringing legal persons are more qualified, they understand what they do, infringe knowingly (in most cases) and may engage experienced lawyers to counter attacks of the IP owner.

The general picture of enforcement of rights is more than satisfactory. It also implies that there are obvious advantages to register one’s intellectual property. This will save a lot of effort and money in a possible dispute.

It is worth mentioning that not only damages, direct and circumstantial, may be recovered but also a so called compensation. This is a viable alternative to damages. Damages should be meticulously documented and submitted to court. Compensation does not need to be proved, just claimed. Although it can be argued that the amount of compensation may not seem sufficient in some cases. The maximum amount may be somewhere between $60,000 and $70,000 depending on the rate of exchange but it may be claimed hands down. If it is not, sufficient proof of damage is welcome.

Below are given some court statistics showing the winning rate of applicants in IP disputes in 2020:

  • Appeals against Rospatent decisions: 47 cases examined; 33 satisfied.

  • Enforcement of IP rights: 22970 cases examined; 18647 satisfied.

The bottom line is that it is worthwhile to protect one’s IP rights.

 

Vladimir Biriulin


Partner, Gorodissky & Partners

E: biriulinv@gorodissky.ru

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The move marks the latest step in Temu’s push to protect brands’ intellectual property by collaborating with industry groups and enforcement agencies. Managing IP learns about a rapidly scaling strategy and two success stories
A counterfeiting crackdown targeting fake FIFA World Cup merchandise and new partner hires by CMS, HGF and Winston Strawn were also among the top talking points
Law firms need to accept the hard truth: talent migration isn't personal; it's business as usual
Judge Alan Albright is to leave his role at the Western District of Texas, and could return to private practice
Stobbs has successfully seen off a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
After almost a quarter of a century, Marshall Gerstein has a new managing partner
Abbott winning another round against Sinocare and Menarini, and 'long arm' clarification on the UK's position within the UPC, were also among major developments
Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Gift this article