This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.


Valentina Orlova Pepeliaev Group

In 2011, intellectual property in general, and trademarks in particular, have continued to be in the spotlight for Russian lawmakers, courts, administrative authorities and rights holders alike.

Russia’s principal achievement in 2011 was to adopt a federal constitutional law to set up an Intellectual Rights Court (IRC). In fact, the idea of creating a court to hear disputes over IP rights is nothing new. Under the Russian Federation Patents Law and the Russian Federation Law On Trademarks, Service Marks and Geographical Indications, passed as early as 1992, Russia created a prototype of such a court, a Higher Patents Chamber.

For a number of reasons, however, neither the Higher Patents Chamber, nor any similar court, was ever created. In 2003 and 2004, Rospatent, Russia’s IP authority, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Russian Academy of Justice carried out a study into the prospects of setting up a specialised IP court in Russia. Te study found that the proposal was viable. It also included suggestions as to the court’s responsibilities, selection of judges, and even the technical aspects of its work.

Tis idea received fresh impetus in 2009 and 2010. Opinions were mixed, but the experience of IP litigation, especially when it came to copyright and related rights, was probably one of the key reasons why the IRC bill was passed.

It is difficult to say whether there have been few or many court rulings on IP disputes. Speaking at a round table that discussed the creation of the IRC, Anton Ivanov, chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court, told the audience that the IRC would comprise 30 judges. According to Ivanov, that head count would match the judges’ actual workload and the total average annual number of cases which could potentially fall under the court’s jurisdiction. Ivanov also pointed out that this number was expected to grow given, among other things, that the judges of the IRC would have greater professional expertise.

Te issue of how judges should be trained to serve on the IRC is high on the agenda. It is particularly problematic with patent disputes, which require specialist knowledge in a variety of scientific and technical fields (including chemistry, physics, biotechnology, state-of-the-art manufacturing technology, technical solutions and related soſtware, etc). Te judges who sit in foreign IP courts include experts in a range of fields, and not just lawyers. In Russia, only those with university degrees in law are eligible to become judges. As litigants oſten question the impartiality of expert witnesses, plans are being considered to arrange for technical experts to be on the court’s staff. State educational institutions, such as the Russian State IP Academy and Russian Academy of Justice, are in a position to run special training courses to prepare staff to work in the IRC.


Te jurisdiction of the IRC will, of course, be rather limited. It will be a specialised state commercial (‘arbitration’) court with original and cassation jurisdiction to hear disputes involving the enforcement of intellectual rights. Such disputes will include only a very limited number over copyright and related rights. However, many IP experts believe that it will be only a matter of time before the court’s jurisdiction is expanded to include more types of such disputes.

Practical experience with Part 4 of the Russian Civil Code has shown that it needs to be supplemented with additional provisions and, in some cases, amended. Some of the code’s provisions, especially those that are new to Russian IP law, are not sufficiently clear. As a result, courts have offered differing interpretations of the legislation when hearing disputes. Tis highlighted a need for clarifications from Russia’s supreme courts. Such clarifications were provided in a joint resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court and Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court, dated March 26, 2009: On certain issues that have resulted from the entry into force of part four of the Russian Civil Code.

Te clarifications cover all types of IP protected in Russia and a significant number of aspects involved in their protection and enforcement, for example: the copying levy payable to authors, performers and producers of phonograms; ways to dispose of IP rights, including pledging and licensing; procedure and conditions for paying compensation for infringement of IP rights; specifics of enforcing know-how; and situations where trademark protection is discontinued.

Valentina Orlova is head of IP practice at the Pepeliaev Group. She can be contacted at:

World Intellectual Property Review January/February 2012 85

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100