Параллельный импорт в Российской Федерации: дифференциация или эрозия ответственности за нарушение исключительных прав?

Вестник экономического правосудия Российской Федерации. 2018. № 7. С. 163–175.

Starzhenetsky V.

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.

Keywords: exhaustion of the exclusive right, abuse of right, параллельный импорт, parallel imports, economic sanctions, внешние экономические санкции, ответственность за нарушение исключительного права, злоупотребление гражданскими правами, civil liability for IP rights' infringment