Russia: Dura lex sed lex
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Russia: Dura lex sed lex

A question is occasionally asked whether Russian courts treat foreign companies in the same way as Russian companies. The answer is usually a soothing one in that all parties in a conflict are on the same footing. The case examined below sheds more light on the stance of the courts.

Societe Jas Hennessy et Cie. sued two Russian citizens, A Komarov and N Kilo, in a criminal court for infringement of its trademark "Hennesy" (Case No 2-1615/2018). These people acted in collusion and unlawfully used the trademark for a certain period of time. A criminal case may be initiated if the damage is over $4,000 approximately. A criminal case results either in incarceration or in a fine for the accused person depending on the gravity of the offence. In this case the court imposed a considerable fine on the culprits within the framework of the criminal case and satisfied a civil claim for the amount of $35,000 joined in the same criminal case.

The infringers did not dispute the criminal sentence but objected to the amount of damages. The hearing took place on June 2018. Societe Jas Hennessy et Cie. did not appear at the hearing and asked the court to examine the case in absentia. The court confirmed $35,000 to be paid to the plaintiff.

The infringers appealed the judgment at the court of appeal. The hearing took place in April 2019 with none of the parties present. The respondents filed a written complaint in which they stated that the judgment of the previous court had not contained even a single piece of evidence showing which unlawful actions had caused the damage. According to the respondents the plaintiff referred to the lost profit but did not show how this affected his financial situation. Further, the respondents asked to lower the damages down to $300.

The plaintiff did not file any response to the complaint so the court examined the case on the basis of the documents present on file. The court confirmed that according to the general rule, damage inflicted on the property of a legal person should be compensated in full by the person who caused the damage. The appeal court stated that the infringers had been convicted of a crime and according to the judgment they had caused damage amounting to $35,000.

In its arguments, the court relied on the clarifications issued by the Supreme Court (Ruling No 23 of December 19 2003). It states that a criminal sentence cannot be questioned by the court examining civil consequences of the actions of the person in whose respect the sentence was announced. While issuing a judgment ensuing from a criminal case the court cannot discuss the guilt of the respondent but may only examine the issue of the size of the compensation. As a result, the court concluded that there were no circumstances that could exclude civil liability of the respondents. Following that, the court calculated the damage because of distribution of counterfeit goods. It multiplied the number of the sold bottles according to the price of the original bottles and found that the proceeds from sales could have been $35,000. Hence, if the goods had been sold by the trademark owner he would have received that amount of money. The court also collected $300 state duty from the respondents.

It was stated in the criminal sentence that two physical persons were guilty of a criminal offence according to Article 180 of the Criminal Code. They acted in collusion as an organised group and repeatedly infringed trademark rights which led to significant damage for the plaintiff. The actions carried out by the accused persons could not be seen as an attempt to perpetrate a crime but rather a complete crime. The complaint by the defendants aimed at lowering the amount of compensation was dismissed. The amount of $35,000 went to the trademark owner as lost profit.

Lost profit is not always easy to prove. The courts are very keen to examine evidence of inflicted real damages, as well as circumstantial damages. This case shows that judicial practice is developing. It can be expected that IP owners will have fewer difficulties claiming and obtaining judgments involving lost money.


Vladimir Biriulin

Gorodissky & PartnersRussia 129010, MoscowB. Spasskaya Str25, stroenie 3Tel: +7 495 937 6116 / 6109Fax: +7 495 937 6104 / 

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Sources debate the implications of an opinion by Delaware’s chief judge Colm Connolly that lambasted the NPE IP Edge
Five partners reveal how delays in examining trademark applications are affecting their advice to clients and how they pitch new work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns