Компенсация за нарушение исключительного права: проблемы определения размера ответственности
“Compensation for violation of exclusive rights” is the central remedy used in the Russian legal system against IP infringements. This legal instrument is the Russian equivalent for the US statutory damages. It was introduced in Russia in 1992, quickly became very popular, and in high demand among IP right holders. At the same time due to it’s controversial, hybrid nature that combines compensatory and punitive functions there is a permanent risk of awarding excessive, many times multiplied damages, which is contrary to the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and individual character of sanction, reasonableness and justice. The article traces the evolution of the compensation in the Russian IP law and case law since 1992, reflects ongoing theoretical debates on its nature, demonstrates aggressive tactics used by the IP right holders in order to multiply damages subject to award, and reveals practical solutions developed by the Russian courts in order to balance competing interests. The article concludes with several proposals to reform legislative provisions on compensation in Russia.
On February 13, 2018, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation declared judgment No. 8-П «On Constitutionality of the Provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 1252, Article 1487 and paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of Article 1515 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in connection with complaint of the limited liability company «PAG», which in many respects is crucial for parallel importers operating on the Russian market. In addition to the question of the constitutionality of parallel imports per se, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation touched on several other very important legal topics, including abuse of exclusive rights, individualization of liability for IP infringements, and expressed its attitude towards sanctions imposed by foreign states against Russia. The Constitutional Court confirmed that national exhaustion rule prescribed by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is not contrary to the Constitution. However, courts must differentiate civil liability when they deal with counterfeited goods and parallel imports due to the fact that parallel importation does not represent equal threat to the right holders compared to counterfeiting. Moreover, it was stressed that in cases of abuse of rights, bad faith behavior or refusal to supply goods to Russia because of compliance with sanctions regime against Russia courts are authorized to deny claims of the right holders to prevent parallel imports.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/