Russia to seize IP and assets of companies leaving the country

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Russia to seize IP and assets of companies leaving the country

rflag-min.jpeg

The Russian government wants legislation that would allow it to seize the IP and other assets of departing companies

The Russian government has drafted a bill that would allow it to seize intellectual property and other assets of some foreign companies that have decided to leave or scale down operations in the country.

The bill has yet to be tabled before Russia’s parliament the State Duma, a local practitioner confirmed to Managing IP today, March 16.

It could apply to foreign companies with more than 100 employees or a valuation of 1 billion rubles ($9.1 million) in which individuals from “unfriendly countries” own at least a 25% stake.

An English translation of the draft bill, seen by Managing IP, stipulates that the seized assets would go to an “external administration”, either the Russian state development corporation VEB.RF or the State Corporation Deposit Insurance Agency.

It comes after numerous major brands, including Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Adidas, Disney, H&M, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Starbucks, announced that they were suspending, shutting, or scaling down their operations in Russia.

Several law firms, including those with strong IP practices such as Allen & Overy, Gowling WLG and Latham & Watkins, followed suit.

The proposed legislation would allow the external administration to take control of and use IP belonging to the foreign company, as well as IP licensed to it.

This could effectively include IP licensed to a Russian subsidiary by a foreign parent company or any unrelated company that merely licensed its rights in Russia.

On top of that, the government could also reinstate any IP licences that were revoked or cancelled on or after February 24 – when Russia began its Ukraine invasion.

Related stories

The heads of potentially affected companies must have “avoided exercising their powers”, left Russia, or caused unjustified termination of the organisation’s activity, liquidation, or bankruptcy after February 24 without any obvious economic reason.

Russia previously approved a list of 24 foreign states and territories that have committed unfriendly acts, including Australia, EU member states, Japan, Singapore, Ukraine, the UK, and the US.

The proposed law is one of the several legislative steps that the government has taken to push back against Western sanctions and businesses that have decided to shut their operations in Russia.

For instance, the government announced on March 7 that rights owners from sanctioning territories would not be entitled to any compensation for the unauthorised use of their IP, and passed a law just two days later that allowed it to exclude specific goods from IP protection.

The newly proposed law stipulates that the external administration would take over a company for up to three months, during which the oversight body would control all the assets and liabilities of the company.

Thereafter it would transfer all assets of the foreign company including IP to a newly created business.

The shares in this new company would be sold via an auction to ensure the continued operation of the shut-down business.

It potentially means that a third party that won such an auction would be able to acquire rights in and use a company’s IP assets legally in Russia, while the original IP owners could potentially perpetually lose their rights in the territory.

To avoid a takeover, a company may apply to a court before the external administration’s appointment, indicating its intent to resume or continue its operations in Russia.

President Vladimir Putin, in a conference with members of his government, said last week that the Kremlin could find legally viable ways to seize international businesses.

He added that the government would “introduce external management and then transfer these enterprises to those who actually want to work”. The new bill seems to have been framed to carry out this objective.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article