International rights-holders with assets in Russia face a deteriorating enforcement environment. Courts have adopted new positions on parallel imports, compensation awards, and the standing of foreign claimants. and those changes are already producing concrete consequences for brands that have not adjusted their registration and litigation strategy.
Russian intellectual property law has undergone a series of court-driven and legislative shifts since 2022, with the most significant changes affecting trademark enforcement, IP registration procedures, and the calculation of damages in infringement claims. Foreign companies that hold or intend to file a trademark application in Russia must now account for these shifts when assessing their exposure. Businesses that delay a strategic review risk losing enforceable rights entirely.
This alert identifies the affected business categories, sets out the threshold criteria for exposure, and lists the immediate actions international companies should take now.
What has changed – the regulatory and court-practice developments
Three interconnected developments define the current situation for international rights-holders in Russia.
Parallel imports and the exhaustion doctrine. Russia formally moved to an international exhaustion-of-rights regime. Under this shift, goods placed on the market anywhere in the world by the rights-holder – or with its consent – can be imported into Russia without authorisation. Rospatent (the Russian federal intellectual property authority) and the Palata po patentnym sporam (Patent Disputes Chamber) have applied this position broadly. Courts have consequently dismissed a significant share of infringement claims where the imported goods were genuinely produced under licence abroad. Rights-holders that relied on territorial exclusivity to prevent grey market imports now face a substantially narrowed enforcement tool.
Compensation awards for foreign claimants. The Arbitrazhnye sudy (commercial courts. Also known as arbitrazh courts). including the specialised Sud po intellektual'nym pravam (Court for Intellectual Rights). have in a number of recent decisions reduced statutory compensation levels available to foreign rights-holders. The stated rationale has combined sanctions-related public policy grounds with procedural arguments around the claimant's standing to sue. Practitioners in Russia note that foreign companies without a locally registered representative or a current IP registration are encountering heightened procedural obstacles at the admissibility stage.
Opposition proceedings and Nice classification review. Rospatent has tightened the grounds on which opposition proceedings against bad-faith trademark applications can succeed. A mark that was previously uncontested – particularly in classes under the Nizhskoye klassifikatsionnoye soglasheniye (Nice classification system) covering technology, consumer goods, and digital services – may now face squatting applications filed by local entities. The window to challenge such applications through opposition proceedings remains open but is time-limited. Failure to act within that window converts the squatter's application into a registration, which then requires more costly cancellation litigation.
For companies operating at the intersection of AI-driven products and trademark protection, the implications extend further. International businesses should also review AI and technology law considerations in Russia, where separate regulatory developments affect the protection of software-embedded IP.
Who is affected – threshold criteria and business categories
This alert is directly relevant to any international company that meets one or more of the following criteria.
- Holds a registered trademark, patent, or copyright in Russia and has not conducted an enforcement review since early 2023.
- Previously relied on territorial exclusivity or exclusive distribution agreements to prevent parallel imports into Russia.
- Has a pending trademark application in Russia that has not yet cleared the examination or opposition stage.
- Operates in sectors specifically targeted by the parallel imports permitted list: consumer electronics, automotive parts, pharmaceuticals, luxury goods, and software.
- Has no locally registered representative or no active power of attorney on file with Rospatent.
The risk is not limited to companies with an active Russian market presence. Rights-holders with dormant registrations – maintained solely to prevent squatting – are equally exposed. Courts have refused to award compensation in infringement claims where the claimant showed no genuine commercial use in Russia and no local representative with authority to act.
To receive an expert assessment of your IP registration and enforcement position in Russia, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
What to do now – immediate actions and compliance timeline
International companies should treat the following as a priority checklist for the next 60 to 90 days.
1. Audit existing registrations. Confirm that each trademark registration in Russia remains in force, covers the correct Nice classification classes, and has an active local representative on record with Rospatent. Registrations that lapsed through non-renewal or that were filed without local representation are particularly vulnerable.
2. File or renew trademark applications without delay. Any trademark application that is currently pending should be monitored for squatting activity. If a competing application has been filed by a third party in an overlapping class, opposition proceedings must be initiated promptly. The opposition window does not pause while the rights-holder considers its options.
3. Reassess exclusivity arrangements. Distribution and licensing agreements that contained exclusivity provisions effective in Russia should be reviewed. Exclusivity based purely on trademark rights is no longer reliably enforceable against parallel importers. Contractual mechanisms – non-compete obligations, product serialisation, quality-control provisions – offer a more durable alternative.
4. Appoint or confirm a local representative. The Court for Intellectual Rights has applied strict standing requirements. A foreign claimant without a properly authorised local representative faces dismissal on procedural grounds before the merits of an infringement claim are ever considered.
5. Prepare an updated enforcement strategy. Any contemplated infringement claim should be assessed under the current court practice standards. This includes verifying that the infringing goods are not covered by the parallel imports permitted list and that the claimant can demonstrate genuine commercial use in Russia. For a fuller picture of the enforcement tools still available, see our overview of intellectual property services in Russia.
Companies with pending or planned IP disputes in neighbouring CIS jurisdictions should also consider how these shifts interact with regional enforcement. A related alert covering IP enforcement developments in Kazakhstan addresses parallel trends in that market.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our intellectual property practice assists international rights-holders with trademark application strategy, IP registration, opposition proceedings, and infringement claims across CIS markets, including Russia. The firm's team combines civil law expertise with English common law tradition, allowing us to handle cross-border IP enforcement matters that span multiple legal systems. Our practitioners have experience before the Court for Intellectual Rights and before Rospatent's Patent Disputes Chamber. As a law firm in Russia and across the CIS region, we work with technology companies, consumer brands, and institutional rights-holders who require a results-oriented approach to IP protection. Engaging a lawyer in Russia with cross-border enforcement experience is critical when court practice is shifting as rapidly as it is today. To discuss how these developments affect your portfolio, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Author: Anna Chen | Senior Associate, Asia-Pacific, Middle East & CIS | Published: April 16, 2026