A brand owner who spent years building an exclusive distribution network in Russia now watches genuine versions of its own products enter the market through channels it never authorised. The goods are not counterfeit. They carry the correct trademark. Yet they arrive via third-country traders, bypass the authorised distributor, and undercut the official price. This is the practical reality of parallel import in post-2022 Russia – and it sits at the heart of a doctrinal shift that has reshaped intellectual property law in the country.
Russia formally moved from a national exhaustion doctrine to an international exhaustion regime for a significant range of goods beginning in 2022, permitting parallel imports of genuine trademarked products without the right holder's consent. The shift applies to goods listed on government-approved product schedules, which are reviewed and updated periodically. Rights holders retain infringement claim options against counterfeit goods, materially altered products, and imports outside the approved categories.
This analysis examines the doctrinal foundation of the change, competing court interpretations, the gap between statutory text and actual enforcement, cross-border implications for CIS-region clients, and strategic options for brand owners and importers alike.
Doctrinal background: from national to international exhaustion
The exhaustion of intellectual property rights is the principle that determines when a right holder loses the ability to control further distribution of goods bearing its IP. Under a national exhaustion model, that right is exhausted only upon first authorised sale within the territory. Goods sold abroad – even by the same right holder – can still be blocked at the border. Under an international exhaustion model, the right is exhausted upon any authorised sale anywhere in the world. Genuine goods may then be imported by any party without further consent.
Russia historically applied national exhaustion under its civil legislation governing intellectual property. This gave trademark owners, patent holders, and copyright proprietors significant control over distribution channels. Authorised distributors could rely on the right holder's ability to block third-party imports. The system suited Western brand owners with premium pricing strategies.
The policy rationale shifted sharply following the geopolitical events of 2022. Responding to supply disruptions caused by the withdrawal of many international brands from the Russian market, the government authorised parallel imports for a broad range of product categories. The legal vehicle was executive action supplementing existing IP legislation, rather than a wholesale revision of the civil code's exhaustion provisions. This created an immediate tension: the civil legislation still contained language consistent with national exhaustion, yet executive-level permissions overrode that default for listed categories.
Practitioners in Russia note that the resulting legal landscape is layered. The baseline rule in civil legislation points one direction; the approved import lists point another. Which layer governs in a specific dispute depends on the product category, the date of importation, and the version of the approved list in force at the relevant time.
Competing court interpretations and the statute-to-practice gap
Russian courts – in particular the IP Court (Sud po intellektual'nym pravam, the specialised IP Court of Russia) – were already engaging with exhaustion doctrine before 2022. Their earlier decisions had confirmed the national exhaustion default and upheld infringement claims against parallel importers. The post-2022 regulatory shift required courts to reconcile those earlier positions with new executive permissions.
The dominant approach that has emerged treats the approved product lists as a lex specialis. Where a product category is listed, an infringement claim against a parallel importer of genuine goods fails on the exhaustion point. Courts examine whether the goods are genuinely the right holder's product, whether they fall within the listed category, and whether the import took place after the relevant approval date. Where all three conditions are met, the infringement claim is generally dismissed.
However, divergent lines of reasoning have appeared at lower levels. Some courts have applied a narrower reading, requiring not just that the category be listed but that the specific goods bear no modification and that the importer can document the original authorised sale abroad. Others have accepted a broader reading – that listing a category is sufficient, and the evidentiary burden shifts to the right holder to show why the specific import should be treated differently.
The IP Court has moved toward the narrower, documentation-focused approach. In practice, this means parallel importers face a real evidentiary requirement. They must be able to demonstrate the chain of genuine first sale. Importers who cannot produce that chain remain vulnerable to an infringement claim even for listed categories. This gap between the regulatory permission and the evidentiary standard at court is one of the most practically significant features of the current system.
A second gap concerns trademark application and registration status. Where a right holder has allowed its IP registration to lapse or has failed to maintain active trademark registration in Russia, its ability to pursue any infringement claim. including against counterfeit goods – weakens considerably. Some brand owners who withdrew from the Russian market also paused renewal proceedings, inadvertently undermining their residual enforcement position.
For IP registration strategy, the lesson is clear: maintaining active trademark registration in Russia, across the correct Nice klassifikatsiya (Nice classification) classes for the relevant goods and services, remains a prerequisite for any enforcement option. Opposition proceedings against conflicting marks filed by opportunistic third parties – a documented phenomenon since 2022 – also require active registration as the standing basis.
To understand how Russia's IP enforcement tools compare with the broader regional picture, see our analysis of parallel import and IP rights exhaustion in Kazakhstan, where the EAEU dimension adds a further layer of complexity.
Cross-border implications for CIS clients and EAEU dynamics
Russia's shift to international exhaustion for approved categories does not exist in isolation. Russia is a member of the Evraziyskiy ekonomicheskiy soyuz (Eurasian Economic Union, EAEU), together with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan. The EAEU has its own IP exhaustion regime under EAEU treaty law, which applies a regional exhaustion principle: rights are exhausted upon first authorised sale anywhere within the EAEU territory.
This creates a layered structure for CIS-region clients. Goods first placed on the market in Kazakhstan by an authorised distributor are – under EAEU regional exhaustion – freely movable to Russia without the right holder's further consent. Russia's national parallel import rules operate on top of this regional baseline for goods originating from outside the EAEU. The practical consequence is that the most legally straightforward parallel import route into Russia runs through EAEU member states, using regional exhaustion to avoid reliance on Russia's executive-level approved lists.
For brand owners, this means a dual-front enforcement problem. Stopping a parallel import from a non-EAEU country requires engaging the approved list regime. Stopping movement of goods already inside the EAEU requires challenging the regional exhaustion principle itself – a much harder task, since that principle is embedded in treaty law above the national level.
CIS-region clients – particularly businesses incorporated in Kazakhstan, Belarus, or Armenia that source goods internationally – have found the EAEU route commercially attractive since 2022. Legal advisers in the region consistently point out that this route carries its own documentation burden: the original authorised placement on the EAEU market must be demonstrable. Additionally. The goods must not have been materially altered before onward movement to Russia.
For clients operating cross-border IP strategies between Russia and CIS jurisdictions, the interaction between national IP legislation, EAEU treaty law, and Russia's parallel import approvals is a central structuring concern. Engaging a lawyer in Russia with regional expertise – and coordinating with counsel in the relevant EAEU member state – is the standard approach for managing this multi-layered exposure.
Our intellectual property services in Russia page sets out the full range of registration, enforcement, and strategic advisory options available to international clients in this environment.
To discuss how Russia's parallel import rules interact with your IP portfolio and cross-border supply chain, reach out to info@ferrazwhitmore.com for a tailored strategy assessment.
Strategic options for brand owners and importers
The post-2022 environment does not leave brand owners without options. It does, however, require a deliberate reorientation of strategy. The following approaches reflect current practice for international clients managing IP exposure in Russia.
Maintaining active IP registration is the non-negotiable foundation. Trademark registration through Rospatent (the Russian Patent and Trademark Office), covering all relevant Nice classification classes, preserves enforcement standing for infringement claims against counterfeit goods and against imports of altered products. It also provides the legal basis to contest opposition proceedings filed by third parties seeking to register similar marks while the original owner is absent from the market.
Monitoring the approved product lists is operationally essential. The lists are revised periodically by government order. A product category that was excluded in one version may be added in the next – and vice versa. Brand owners who treat the lists as static miss category changes that directly affect their enforcement position. Importers who fail to check current list status before shipping face the risk that goods they believed were approved now fall outside the current approved categories.
Documenting the supply chain is the parallel importer's equivalent discipline. Courts applying the narrower IP Court approach require evidence of the original authorised sale abroad. Importers who can produce that documentation. invoices, customs declarations, distribution agreements confirming the right holder placed goods on a foreign market. are in a materially stronger position than those relying solely on the regulatory permission.
Contractual chain controls remain available to brand owners, even where the exhaustion doctrine limits their in rem IP rights. Authorised distributors can be contractually bound not to sell into Russia. Breach of that obligation may not support an IP infringement claim, but it does support a contractual damages claim against the distributor. This is a frequently underused tool in the current environment.
Quality and safety differentiation is a more aggressive strategy. Where goods imported through parallel channels lack the quality controls, language requirements. Alternatively, safety certifications required for the Russian market. Rights holders can engage customs authorities and technical standards regulators on grounds separate from IP exhaustion. This approach works best for regulated product categories – pharmaceuticals, electronics, medical devices – where market authorisation requirements create a parallel enforcement layer.
The economics of these strategies vary. Maintaining registration and monitoring lists involves modest ongoing costs. Pursuing active litigation against parallel importers – particularly where goods are on the approved list – carries a lower probability of success on the exhaustion point and higher legal costs. The more productive investment for most brand owners in the current climate is defensive: preserving registration, monitoring channels, and documenting any alterations or quality deviations that remove the parallel importer's exhaustion defence.
For technology and software businesses, the parallel import question intersects with Russia's digital IP legislation and with emerging AI and technology regulation. Our analysis of AI and technology law in Russia covers the digital IP dimensions that increasingly affect software licensing and online distribution strategies.
Outlook: regulatory trajectory and what to monitor
Russia's parallel import regime is explicitly described by its architects as a temporary measure linked to current economic conditions. In practice, temporary measures in IP law have a history of becoming permanent, particularly where they generate well-established commercial structures and beneficiary interest groups. Importers who have built supply chains around the approved list regime have a strong interest in its continuation. That political economy is relevant to any medium-term strategic assessment.
Several regulatory developments are worth monitoring closely.
First, the approved product lists continue to evolve. The government has both added and removed categories in successive revisions. Businesses should build regular list review into their compliance calendar – at minimum quarterly, and more frequently for fast-moving categories such as electronics and automotive parts.
Second, the IP Court's evidentiary case law on supply chain documentation is still developing. The direction of travel – toward more stringent documentation requirements for parallel importers – is clear. But the precise threshold has not yet been fully settled. Decisions over the next twelve to eighteen months are likely to sharpen that line considerably.
Third, EAEU-level developments may interact with Russia's national position. The EAEU's own IP bodies have discussed the regional implications of the parallel import permissions. Any EAEU-level harmonisation effort could either reinforce or complicate the current patchwork of national and regional rules.
Fourth, brand owners who chose to maintain no active presence in Russia. and who allowed registrations to lapse. face the prospect of trademark squatting: third parties filing trademark applications for well-known foreign marks with Rospatent. Opposition proceedings against such filings are available under Russian IP legislation but require active engagement. The window for challenging a squatter registration narrows once the registration is granted and use begins.
Fifth, the relationship between Russia's parallel import rules and sanctions compliance obligations in third countries is a live concern for international clients. An importer in a third country who sources goods and routes them through an EAEU intermediary for onward delivery to Russia may face sanctions exposure in its home jurisdiction. Entirely separate from any Russian IP question. Legal structuring must address both dimensions simultaneously. A law firm in Russia with cross-border capability – coordinating with international counsel – is the appropriate advisory structure for this exposure.
For an expert assessment of how parallel import rules affect your IP portfolio and distribution strategy in Russia, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Does Russia now allow parallel imports for all product categories?
A: Not universally. Since 2022, Russia has adopted an international exhaustion regime for a broad range of goods. However, the government publishes and periodically revises approved product lists. Categories not included in the approved lists may still be subject to national exhaustion rules, meaning rights holders can block unauthorised imports. Regular monitoring of the current approved list is essential before structuring any import operation.
Q: Can a trademark owner in Russia still bring an infringement claim against a parallel importer?
A: An infringement claim against a parallel importer is now harder to sustain for goods on approved parallel import lists. Because the international exhaustion doctrine removes the right holder's ability to restrict circulation once genuine goods enter the market. However, claims remain available where goods are counterfeit, where they fall outside the approved list, or where the importer has altered or repackaged the goods in a way that damages the trademark. Courts examine each scenario on its specific facts.
Q: How long does trademark registration take in Russia and does it affect parallel import protection?
A: Trademark registration in Russia, managed by Rospatent, typically takes between twelve and eighteen months from filing to grant, subject to examination and any opposition proceedings. Registration itself does not prevent parallel imports of genuine goods on the approved list. It does, however, provide the legal standing needed to pursue infringement claims against counterfeit goods and to challenge imports of materially altered products. Filing under the correct Nice classification classes is critical to the scope of protection.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our IP practice supports brand owners, technology companies, and international investors with trademark application strategy, IP registration, opposition proceedings, infringement claim management, and parallel import analysis across CIS and high-growth markets. The firm combines Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to provide cross-border IP strategies that work across multiple legal systems simultaneously. Our attorneys have advised on IP enforcement and licensing matters across both civil law and common law jurisdictions, including before specialist IP tribunals in the CIS region. As a law firm in Russia and the broader CIS region, we coordinate seamlessly with local counsel to deliver results-oriented advice to clients navigating complex regulatory environments. To discuss how Russia's parallel import and IP exhaustion rules 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.