All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

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 our site

The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal on American Axle, dashing hopes of a judicial fix to patent eligibility uncertainty
The Copyright Office refused to grant protection on the basis that the authorship couldn’t be distinguished from the final work produced by the program
COVID vaccines top Clarivate’s new brands list; Fed Circuit reverses Coca-Cola’s TTAB win; Skechers sues Brooks; USPTO to retire Public PAIR tool; CCB sees cricket complaint
Lawyers should pay attention to APJs’ questions and remember that PTAB proceedings aren’t jury trials, say former PTAB judges
The USPTO cancelled ‘Galavava’ and 'Surfstar Wake' and partly cancelled ‘Heika’ this month
We have published all the 2022 rankings of the leading firms for patent litigation and protection work
In-house and private practice counsel say UK judges have raised the bar for preliminary injunction requests
António Campinos will serve another five years as EPO president – perhaps he’ll calm unrest at the office in that time
LGBTQ IP lawyers say using rainbow colours and posting solidarity messages on social media must be followed by concrete action
Brand owners bemoan counterfeiters’ latest wheeze and say enforcement authorities should get more involved
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree