I. Beyond Design: Patents as a Hidden Asset in Fashion

The fashion industry thrives on creativity, but also on technology. Behind every elegant silhouette often lies a functional innovation: a new fabric structure, a unique cut enhancing comfort, or a technical element that shapes the product’s performance.

Russian patent law offers a comprehensive toolkit to protect such innovations. While industrial designs (Article 1352 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) safeguard the product’s appearance, functional elements fall within the domain of inventions and utility models (Articles 1350 and 1351).

For a fast-moving sector like fashion, the utility model provides a particularly practical solution: it requires no inventive step, undergoes a simplified examination, and grants protection quickly and cost-effectively. When a collection’s life cycle is measured in months, this combination of speed and legal certainty can be decisive.

The case discussed below illustrates how a utility model patent became a powerful enforcement tool in a real dispute within the apparel market.

II. Case Study: The Leggings Dispute (Case No. A56−2794/2023)

In 2023, an entrepreneur from St Petersburg filed a lawsuit against a competitor manufacturing and selling leggings under the brands "Bellatica: Leg Fabulous Skin" and "Bellatica: Leg Correct Skin".

The claimant owned Russian utility model patents No. 211 563 and 211 564, both protecting the technical construction of leggings. The defendant was accused of unauthorized use of these patented solutions and of placing infringing products into commercial circulation. The claim sought monetary compensation and an injunction to prohibit further manufacture and sale.

Unlike typical fashion disputes focusing on visual resemblance, this one revolved around the use of a specific technical solution. This distinction determined the litigation’s trajectory and the central role of the patent-technical expert opinion.

III. Patent-Technical Expert Opinion: From Hypothesis to Proof

Under Article 1358 of the Civil Code, a utility model is considered to be "used" in a product if every feature listed in the independent claim is present. An expert opinion prepared by a patent attorney from the law firm Khusainov, Khomyakov & Partners was submitted to the court by the claimant.

Physical samples of the leggings, purchased from the defendant through a test purchase, were submitted for investigation. This ensured proper identification of the investigated products and their relevance to the dispute.

The expert witness carried out a comparative analysis between the submitted samples and the patent claims. Each feature from the independent claim of patents No. 211 563 and No. 211 564 was compared sequentially with the corresponding structural elements of the leggings.

Figure 1 shows one of the investigated samples in a flat layout. The front view reveals the waistband, legs, and compression elements — two bands stitched in loop form, encircling the legs.

To verify one of the patented features — different elasticity of materials used for the compression elements and for the leggings themselves — the expert witness applied suspended weights to various sections of the garment (Figure 2) and compared the length of the fabric in a normal state (Figure 3) to the elongated length under tension (Figure 4).

The analysis confirmed that the investigated products contained every single feature specified in the independent claims of both patents.

From a legal standpoint, this conclusion provided sufficient grounds to recognize the defendant’s actions as an infringement of the patent holder’s exclusive rights.

Figure 4 — Measurements of the elongation

(The author of this article served as the expert witness in this case.)

IV. The Court’s Evaluation

The Arbitrazh Court of the City of Saint Petersburg examined the expert opinion under Article 71 of the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Procedure Code — based on the judge’s internal conviction and a comprehensive review of all available evidence.

The court explicitly noted that it had no doubts regarding the expert opinion’s validity and relied on it to grant the claim: prohibiting further circulation of infringing products and ordering the monetary compensation and expert opinion’s costs.

V. Key Insights for IP Professionals

• Expert Evidence Defines the Outcome.

In patent disputes, the clarity and methodological rigor of the expert opinion often determine success. A categorical finding that every claimed feature is present leaves no room for procedural maneuvering.

• Patent Quality Drives Enforceability.

Effective enforcement begins with a well-drafted patent. Clear, focused claims enable precise comparison and make technical identity easier to be proved.

• Freedom-to-Operate Searches Are Essential.

Fashion manufacturers should conduct pre-launch patent screenings to avoid inadvertent infringement, particularly in technology-driven niches such as shapewear and smart textiles.

The case discussed above serves to confirm the following. As fashion increasingly merges with technology — from adaptive fabrics to wearable electronics — patent protection is becoming a strategic asset. Mastery of patent enforcement tools, including expert opinion, is no longer optional: it is a vital competence for operating successfully in the modern fashion industry.

Originally published on the AIPPI Portal (link).

Starting September 1, 2025, amendments to the Federal Law on “Organic Products and Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” will take effect in Russia. These changes are aimed, among other things, at tightening the rules for labeling organic products, which include agricultural products, agricultural raw materials, and foodstuffs. The new regulations aim to increase consumer trust in products labeled as organic and protect them from dishonest producers.

Key Regulatory Changes

Under the new legislation, terms such as “organic,” “biodynamic,” “biological,” “ecological,” “environmentally friendly,” “green,” and their abbreviations (e.g., “eco,” “bio,” etc.) can only be used in product labeling if there is a certificate confirming the compliance of production with organic standards. Certification is carried out by accredited bodies that verify that the products meet organic production requirements.

Exceptions to this rule include:

• If technical regulations allow the use of the term “bio” for certain types of products regardless of the production method.
• If the term “green” indicates the color of the product or its degree of ripeness.
• If the phrase “green standard” is used for products with improved characteristics.

Products released before September 1, 2025, may remain in circulation without meeting the new requirements until their expiration date.

Impact on Trademark Examination

Amid clarifications to labeling rules, the legislative changes have already begun to influence the practice of examining trademarks. Applications containing elements like “bio,” “eco,” “green,” “organic,” and similar designations are increasingly being refused.

The Federal Institute of Industrial Property (FIPS) experts justify these refusals by stating that such designations may mislead consumers about the properties and characteristics of the products. To overcome such refusals, applicants are required to provide certificates confirming that the products indeed comply with organic standards.

These refusals apply not only to trademarks for agricultural products, agricultural raw materials, and foodstuffs but also to other categories of goods and services, raising questions among applicants. Although this law regulates only organic products, the examination broadly interprets the requirement for product compliance with the declared properties.

Potential Challenges and Solutions

1. Broad interpretation of the law. Extending certification requirements to all categories of goods and services may be contested as excessive. Applicants may challenge FIPS examiners’ arguments at the preliminary refusal stage to save their rights to trademark registration.
2. Need for pre-obtained certificates. To avoid problems and delays in registration “green” trademarks for products covered by Federal Law “On Organic Products…”, applicants are advised to obtain compliance certificates before filing their applications.
3. Application adaptation. If certification is not feasible, applicants should avoid using trademark applications designations associated with organic products.

Conclusion

Stricter regulation of organic products significantly impacts the examination of trademark applications. Companies planning to use designations related to environmental or organic attributes in their brands should consider the new legal requirements. Additionally, they should carefully develop application strategies to minimize the risk of refusals.

The current changes underscore the need to align intellectual property issues with the rules of other areas of law, requiring a more comprehensive approach from businesses and consultants.

Originally published on the AIPPI Portal (link)

Under the regulations, the standard timeframe for trademark registration in Russia is 18 months and 2 weeks. In practice, the process often takes about 6 months, provided there are no inquiries or notifications, and all official fees are paid on time. But what if you need to register your trademark faster?

Rospatent offers an accelerated procedure for reviewing trademark applications. The decision-making process can be shortened to just two months, significantly speeding up the acquisition of legal protection.

How does it work?

1. Preliminary Search:

• Applicants submit a request to the Federal Institute of Industrial Property (FIPS) for a search across all 45 Nice Classification classes.
• Search fees: 94,400 RUB for word or figurative marks. 188,800 RUB for combined marks.
• The search is completed within 10 business days.

2. Submitting a Petition:

• After receiving the search results, the applicant submits a petition to use these results for an accelerated application review.

3. Application Review:

• The first correspondence from the examination is sent within two months, significantly reducing the overall review timeframe.

When is it necessary? Accelerated trademark registration is essential in situations where immediate brand protection is critical. For example:

• To quickly combat counterfeit products.
• When facing clone companies exploiting your brand identity.
• During disputes over brand ownership, where time is of the essence.

Accelerating the registration process is a powerful tool to safeguard your business in urgent and challenging circumstances.

The amendments to the Schedule of Patent and Other Fees were implemented on October 5, 2024, through Resolution No. 1278 of the Government of the Russian Federation, dated September 18, 2024.

These amendments introduced two significant changes to the Schedule of Patent and Other Fees:

1. Elimination of E-Services Discounts: Fee reductions for using Rospatent’s e-services to file patent, trademark, or other applications electronically are no longer available.
2. Annual Patent Fees must now be paid in five-year increments, starting with the first period.

As a result, once a Decision to Grant a Patent is issued, the applicant must pay a fixed fee of 10,000 RUB. This fee covers:

• Patent publication in the state registry,
• Issuance of an electronic certificate, and
• Annual fees up to the end of the 5th year from the filing (or priority) date.

This payment must be made within two months of the decision date and applies to all patents, including those for inventions, utility models, and designs.

Practical Implications

These changes create challenges in calculating fees, especially for active patents nearing their annuity deadlines.

For example:

• If the 8th annual fee has already been paid, and the 9th annual fee is due after October 5, 2024, both the 9th and 10th annual fees must be paid by the deadline. Subsequent fees for the next five-year period would then be payable two years later, at the end of the 10th year.

The most complex issue involves calculating fees for the initial five-year period for patents already granted.

According to unofficial but widely circulated Rospatent recommendations (shared in writing and via phone inquiries), calculations should proceed as follows:

• If the 3rd annual fee has been paid, and the 4th annual fee is due after October 5, 2024, all unpaid fees for the first five years must be paid. These fees are calculated using the formula: 10,000 RUB (current fixed grant fee) minus all previously paid fees, including the grant fee, and the 3rd annual fee (for inventions), or the grant fee and 1st-3rd annual fees (for utility models).

Recommendations

Given these complexities, applicants, patentees, and their attorneys must exercise great caution when calculating upcoming annual fees to ensure compliance and avoid penalties.

Governments usually aim to avoid monopolies that can negatively impact competition and the economy. However, in the case of patents, an exception is made because patents play a crucial role in stimulating innovation and technological advancement.

A patent is essentially a monopoly agreement with the government. A company (or an individual) receives a patent for an invention by sufficiently disclosing their device or technology in a patent application.

In exchange, the government grants the company a temporary monopoly (usually for 20 years) on the invention’s use. This allows inventors and companies to recoup their investments in research and development, thereby encouraging further innovation.

Once a patent is published, anyone can read the description of the invention and reproduce it. However, in return for this disclosure, the government provides the patent holder with legal protection. If someone copies the device or technology, the patent holder can go to court to enforce their patent rights.

Thus, granting patents is a mechanism used by governments to encourage innovation while avoiding long-term monopolies that could harm the economy and competition. The temporary monopoly helps balance the interests of inventors and society. After the patent expires, the invention enters the public domain, where it can be freely used by everyone.

We offer to your attention an article by Ramzan Khusainov, Managing Partner of KHUSAINOV KHOMYAKOV, titled 'Conducting IP Due Diligence for Startups', published in the collective monograph: Intellectual Property in the Digital Age: Selected Aspects / edited by M.A. Rozhkova — M .: GAUGN Press, 2023.

The IP Due Diligence of a company is a comprehensive check that allows obtaining systematic information about the IP portfolio and the risks associated with it. Such a check may be required, for example, when:

— selling a company or its intangible assets
— dealing with an investor
— licensing the company’s IP
— obtaining financing secured by IP (bank loans).

The article discusses the concept, goals, and stages of the IP Due Diligence, existing options for its conduct, possible risks, and ways to minimize them. Negative and positive scenarios resulting from the check of a startup are considered through examples.

Link to the post in LinkedIn.
Link to read in Russian language.

We were approached by a well-known Russian food manufacturer. In connection with entering the market of Kazakhstan, the client wanted to register its trademark there. As it turned out, a few years ago, an identical mark had already been registered by a Kazakh company.

During the negotiations, the trademark owner offered our client to conclude a license agreement on extremely unfavorable terms. After the refusal to acquire a license, the rights holder attempted to block the supply of the client’s products. The client faced the threat of complete loss of the Kazakh market.

What actions have we taken?

We considered two strategies for contesting the trademark of a Kazakh company:

1. To get recognition of the opponent’s actions as unfair competition.
2. To cancel the trademark based on its non-use by the right holder.

We analyzed the activities of a Kazakh company and found out that part of their business is registering brands of others for subsequent resale or licensing. However, this was not enough to prepare a convincing position in the unfair competition case. At the same time, there were reasons to believe that the brand squatter had not used the mark for three years after registration. Therefore, we decided to start preparing a case on the cancellation of trademark protection due to its non-use.

Before filing a lawsuit, we applied for a trademark in the client’s name and collected evidence showing that the opponent was indeed not used the mark. We conducted market research and requested information from food regulators.

As a result of the court case, we canceled the disputed trademark and eliminated obstacles in the way of our client’s trademark application. As a result, the client received its brand protection and resumed the supply of products to the Kazakhstan market.

Trademark squatting can be avoided if:

1. Timely register the key brand elements in the countries of the planned business.
2. Conduct monitoring to identify pirate trademark applications and prevent them from being granted legal protection.

A company approached us with the above task. It received a utility model in Russia for protective coating equipment and planned to supply this equipment abroad.

A direct solution to the problem was to file national applications in those countries where utility model protection is possible. The main disadvantage of this option is that the utility model for the equipment does not protect the technology of applying a protective coating.

In this course of action, the client would also need to select the countries of interest in a short time (12 months from the filing date of the first application) and immediately bear all the costs of filing many individual applications, which is risky for business. If the product is not in demand in the country chosen for patenting, then the investment will not be justified.

We proposed a different strategy, with fewer business risks and a phased plan for spending money on patents abroad. The client got the opportunity to test the demand for the product and find potential buyers.

Our strategy included:

1. Increasing the timeframe for deciding on countries for patenting;
2. Supplying the client with a greater choice of countries;
3. Providing the opportunity to expand the scope of protection of the developed technology.

To do this, we conducted a patent search and offered the client to refine the equipment and more fully characterize the stages of the technology implementation. As a result, we were able to prepare an application for an invention.

Next, we followed the procedure for obtaining foreign protection, namely, we:

• filed an application for an invention with Rospatent and secured protection of the modified technology in Russia;
• filed an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) procedure;
• transferred the international application to the European Patent Office (EPO), the national offices of Israel, and several Asian countries;
• took advantage of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) for accelerated processing of applications.

Our strategy allowed the client to:

1. Provide a monopoly position for the presentation of its technology in targeted foreign markets;
2. Obtain an opinion of the International Searching Authority for the proposed technical solution and reduce the time for consideration of applications in foreign patent offices;
3. Systematically distribute the costs of patenting.

1. Which exhaustion regime Russia currently applies?

Russia is a member of the EAEU (which also includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan), which adheres to the regional regime of exhaustion.

The regional regime means the exhaustion of IP rights after the original product is put on the market in the EAEU by the IP owner or with his consent. However, in the case of unauthorized imports from outside the EAEU, the IP rights are not exhausted.

At the same time, in Russia, rights holders have recently limited the ability to object to parallel imports.

Exceptions from the regional exhaustion principle for certain goods are also anticipated at the EAEU level (Order EEC Council N 12 of 17 March 2022).

2. What regulatory acts in Russia introduced exceptions from the regional exhaustion regime, partially legalizing parallel imports?

• Federal Law No. 46-FZ of 8 March 2022 (as amended on 28 June 2022) 'On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation'

Under Article 18(1) of this law, in 2022, the Government has the right to set a list of goods (groups of goods) for which certain provisions of the Civil Code (CC RF) on the protection of exclusive rights to intellectual property will be excluded.

• Resolution Government RF N 506 of 29 March 2022

The Government instructed the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT) to approve a list of goods (groups of goods) that are not subject to restrictions on the parallel import of goods containing trademarks, inventions, utility models, and industrial designs.

• Executive Order MIT RF N 1532 of 19 April 2022 (as amended on 3 June 2022)

The corresponding list has been approved. Its updated version came into effect on 5 July 2022.

• Federal Law No. 213-FZ of 28 June 2022 'On Amendments to Article 18 of the Federal Law 'On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation'

Federal Law No. 46-FZ supplemented with Article 18(3), which, in confluence with the above Resolution and Executive Order, should be interpreted as excluding liability for parallel imports of particular goods (groups of goods) from the approved list.

3. What does the list of goods for parallel imports look like?

The list includes items from most industries, from car parts, building materials, and electrical equipment to cosmetics, textiles, and toys. The list contains both entire product groups and goods under specific trademarks. A complete list is available on the MIT official website.

4. What is the term for the introduced exceptions?

Currently, exceptions partially legalizing parallel imports are valid in Russia until the end of 2022.

5. Does allowance of parallel imports mean permission to import counterfeit products?

No. The import of counterfeit goods is an infringement that entails civil and administrative or criminal liability (depending on the amount of damage caused).

6. What are the advantages of legalizing parallel imports?

The main advantage is that Russian consumers retain access to goods of foreign origin, which are not currently supplied to Russia through official distribution channels. In addition, the mere possibility of purchasing foreign goods prevents the monopolization of the market by local producers and contributes to the preservation of a competitive environment.

7. What are the disadvantages of parallel import?

The disadvantages of parallel imports are mainly the lack of a full warranty and service support from the foreign manufacturer and the higher risks of counterfeit products distribution.

An applicant should file for a patent and successfully follow through with a patent office’s examination to obtain legal protection. But this is not the endpoint of interaction with the patent office. Patents need to be renewed to survive.

Let’s consider the procedure for maintaining a patent in force.

***

A patent gives an owner the exclusive right to use his new technical solution, i.e., the right to restrict others from copying and commercially exploiting the patented product or technology for a limited time on a specific territory.

The Russian patent law establishes the following validity periods for patents: twenty years for inventions; ten years for utility models; five years for industrial designs.

However, there are two peculiarities. First, the protection term of an invention related to a drug, pesticide, or agrochemical, which may be used only after receiving a special permit, can be additionally extended.

Second, an industrial design patent’s owner can claim to expand protection for the next five years but no more than twenty-five years in total. In this case, it is necessary to pay a fee for the entire subsequent five-year period.

Let’s turn back to the patents for the inventions and utility models. The issuance of a patent does not mean that it will automatically be valid for the whole period specified by the law. Fees must be paid annually.

If a maintenance fee is not transferred within the prescribed period, a patent will lapse. The above means that a patent owner will lose a monopoly on a technology or product. He will not be able to prohibit copying thereof and enter into license agreements anymore.

Judicial opinion

• As the Russian Constitutional Court has repeatedly noted, a regulation that allows early termination of a patent due to non-payment of fees "indicates the legislator’s desire to maintain in force only those patents that have actual or potential value" (rulings Nos. 497-O and No. 504-O of March 5, 2014, No. 3203-O of December 20, 2018, etc.).

Annual fees for a patented invention are paid from the third year. This provision has a potential risk for the patentee that sometimes comes into reality.

First сase

• A company has applied for a patent for an invention. The examination was quick — the patent office issued a decision to grant in just five months. The applicant paid the registration fee but deferred paying a fee for the third year. After some time, the company asked a patent attorney to audit its intellectual property, who found that the specified patent could be lapsed due to non-payment of the first annual fee.

When we talk about the utility models, the situation is somewhat simpler. Utility models must be maintained from the first year of validity, and annual fees are also required each year.

Second сase

• When registering a patent for a utility model, a company paid both the first and second years of its validity. Unfortunately, the above did not save the patent owner from missing the deadline for paying the annual fee in the future. A few years later, the company was preparing documents for a competition and was surprised to find that the patent had expired. Fortunately, it was not so late to restore the patent. However, the company incurred the cost of paying additional official fees and patent attorney fees to solve the problem.

***

In summary, the duration of a patent is limited. Taking advantage of the patent monopoly during this period requires regular and timely payment of maintenance fees. If a company has a few patents, it should keep a close eye on them as they are key business assets. The termination of even one patent may lead to significant risks for the company’s growth and development. Increasing the patent portfolio requires implementing a systematic approach and using suitable software products and (or) services.

The Sup Ct RF clarified what courts should consider when deciding trademark claims filed on behalf of licensees or franchisees, not the trademark owners themselves.

On 27 July 2022, the Sup Ct RF overruled the lower courts' decisions and ordered case A65−20 389/2020 for re-hearing. In this case, MBE-RU — a Russian franchisee of the international logistics franchise MBE Mail Boxes Etc. demands defendants to be prohibited from using signs similar to protected trademarks. At present, the case is under the second round of consideration by the Arb Ct Tatarstan Rep.

Earlier, lower courts decided in favor of the plaintiff despite the absence of the franchise agreement in the case file. On this occasion, the IPR Ct expressed that the mere information about the registration of the agreement on the Rospatent’s website is sufficient to conclude that MBE-RU has rights to trademarks and to file a lawsuit in defense of these rights.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach.

The Sup Ct RF recalled that only licensees (franchisees) — holders of an exclusive license (franchise) can initiate lawsuits to enforce the trademark rights.

The rationale for the claims filed by the licensee is a violation of the rights of the licensee received based on a license agreement, not the trademark owner’s rights.

Thus, the franchisee has the right to bring a claim only within the powers granted to him by the franchise agreement. Whether he can enforce trademark rights against a particular violation or not depends on the scope of these powers. In the absence of the agreement itself, this question cannot be answered.

In December 2022, amendments to the Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On Patent Attorneys" came into force. Among others, the amendments introduced the following changes.

1. The law defined the concept of the activity of a patent attorney

This is a professional activity for representing the clients' interests on issues related to legal protection for IP subject matters, challenging and termination thereof, as well as the acquisition, exercise, enforcement, and transferring of intellectual rights.

2. Expanded the rights of a patent attorney

A patent attorney acquired a right to request the information necessary to fulfill a principal’s instructions from state bodies, local authorities, and organizations, including information about domain name administrators from domain name registrars. Also, a patent attorney obtained access to the information systems of Rospatent.

3. Procedure for preventing and resolving conflicts of interest

To the detriment of the interests of his previous client, a patent attorney must not accept the instructions of a new client in respect of the same dispute, task, and (or) the same IP subject matter. If a conflict arises between clients, a patent attorney must refuse to fulfill each client’s instructions but may contribute to the dispute resolution (act as a mediator).

4. It is possible to enter information about a responsible patent attorney (responsible representative) into the state registers

A rights holder, at his initiative, may appoint a patent attorney as his responsible representative. In the future, if it is necessary to contact the rights holder, Rospatent or another state body will reach the responsible patent attorney, who must notify the right holder of such requests.

5. Secret of a patent attorney — a new type of professional secret protected by law

The secret of a patent attorney is any information about the client’s business, including its IP. A patent attorney is obliged to keep this information secret and take the necessary measures for this. Information constituting the secret of a patent attorney cannot be demanded, transferred, or disclosed to third parties. The only exception is the case when state bodies and (or) local governments request information by law.

6. Changed requirements for candidates for patent attorneys

Work experience for admission of a candidate to the exam for a patent attorney can be reduced from 4 to 2 years, subject to at least 6 months of internship under the guidance of a patent attorney working in this status for at least 5 years. The period of acquisition by a candidate for a patent attorney of the required work experience is calculated from the moment of obtaining higher education.

These amendments are assessed as aimed at improving the legal status of a patent attorney, empowering him with the rights necessary to successfully protect the client’s interests, and improving the level and quality of professional services.

As a registered Eurasian patent attorney, I am often asked about the Eurasian Patent System and how it differs from other patent systems around the world. In short, the Eurasian Patent System is a regional patent system that covers eight countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. It provides a cost-effective way for inventors to obtain patent protection in multiple countries through a single application and examination process.

The Eurasian Patent System is particularly important for inventors who are seeking to protect their inventions in multiple countries. Obtaining patent protection in several countries can be a complex and expensive process, but the Eurasian Patent System offers a more streamlined and cost-effective solution. By submitting a single application, inventors can obtain patent protection in all eight member states.

One of the key advantages of the Eurasian Patent System is that it offers a uniform set of patent rules and procedures that make it easier for inventors and patent attorneys to navigate the system and obtain consistent results.

The Eurasian Patent System as others is relevant for industries that rely on high-tech inventions, where patent protection is critical for maintaining a competitive advantage. However, by obtaining patent protection in multiple countries inventors can protect their inventions more effectively and increase their chances of commercial success.

Another feature of the Eurasian Patent System is that it offers an administrative revocation procedure, which allows third parties to file an opposition and challenge the validity of a granted patent. According to Rule 53(1) of the Patent Regulations under the Eurasian Patent Convention (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), the opposition may be filed with the Eurasian Patent Office by any person within nine months from the date of publication of the information on the grant of the Eurasian patent.

Additionally, according to Rule 16(5) of the Regulations, the period of validity of a Eurasian patent may be extended for a Contracting State whose legislation provides for the extension of the period of validity of a national patent. Where a Eurasian patent term is extended, it shall apply to the invention relating to the product protected by the Eurasian patent, the use of which has been permitted by the authority of the relevant Contracting State, and the use of that product specified in the permission.

Overall, the Eurasian Patent System offers a streamlined and cost-effective way for inventors to obtain patent protection in the Eurasia region.

From 1 March 2026, Russia introduced a clearer statutory regime for foreign-language wording used "in front of consumers" outside advertising. Federal Law No. 168-FZ of 24 June 2025 adds Article 10.1 to the Consumer Protection Law (Law No. 2300−1). The rule is drafted broadly and in a media-neutral way: it covers signs and other means of placing information (inscriptions, pointers, plates, signs, constructions, surfaces, devices, etc.) used where goods and services are offered, across both physical and digital carriers.

1. Article 10.1: the new "non-advertising consumer information" rule

Article 10.1 applies to "information intended for public consumer viewing and not constituting advertising", with carve-outs for certain mandatory statutory information (Articles 8−10 of the same law).

Three compliance rules matter:

• Russian is mandatory: the information must be in Russian (as the state language).
• Other languages are optional, but only on an "equivalent" basis: identical meaning and equivalent placement/technical presentation.
• Trade marks and company names are carved out: Article 10.1 does not apply to the use of company names, trade marks and service marks, and also does not override other specific legal regimes (technical regulations, EAEU rules, etc.).

As a result, English-only (or "mostly English") signboards, menus, in-store navigation, POS materials and similar "non-advertising" consumer information become harder to defend unless (i) a Russian version is present and equivalent, or (ii) the foreign element is genuinely used as a protected trade mark/company name.

2. Advertising: the rules stay the same

Advertising remains regulated primarily by the Advertising Law (Law No. 38-FZ). Foreign words in advertising are not prohibited as such, but the overall message must not be misleading or distort meaning; and where an advertising message is duplicated in another language, the Russian version must be equivalent in content and presentation. "Small print Russian" remains high risk.

3. The compliance fork and sanctions: advertising vs consumer information

A single English element can trigger very different exposure depending on classification:

• If treated as advertising: the key risk is CAO RF Article 14.3 (advertising violations). For legal entities, the typical fine range is 100,000−500,000 RUB.
• If treated as non-advertising consumer information under Article 10.1: the baseline risk is CAO RF Article 14.8(1) (violation of the consumer’s right to receive necessary and accurate information). For legal entities, the fine is 5,000−10,000 RUB, and a warning is possible.

Often the bigger cost is remedial action: replacing signage, reprinting menus/POS, rebuilding templates, or scrapping packaging runs.

4. Trade marks as a compliance tool: what they do and do not do

The Article 10.1 carve-out is commercially important: it allows a foreign-language brand identifier to be used without translation where it is used as a trade mark (or company name) element.

How trade marks help

• They give the Latin/foreign element "legal status", supporting unchanged consumer-facing use of the brand identifier.
• They help scale compliance across networks (retail/franchise), where brand books often contain English elements.

A practical approach is to (i) register the Latin word mark and key stylised variants in Russia for relevant goods/services, and (ii) ensure all surrounding consumer-facing wording (navigation, offers, functional labels, descriptions) is compliant in Russian (and, if bilingual, equivalent).

How trade marks do not help

Trade mark rights will not cure:

• descriptive or promotional foreign wording placed next to the mark (e.g., "sale", "delivery", "coffee to go") — still regulated as advertising or consumer information depending on context;
• mandatory product information regimes (including technical regulations/EAEU rules), which remain Russian-language driven;
• cases where the foreign wording functions descriptively rather than as a source identifier (even if registered), which may still be challenged.

5. Practical checklist (what to do now)

1. Audit: map every consumer-facing text element used in Russia across carriers (storefronts, interiors, packaging, printed materials, websites, apps, templates).
2. Classify each element: (i) trade mark/company name; (ii) advertising; or (iii) Article 10.1 consumer information.
3. For (iii): make Russian primary; if another language is used, ensure equivalence (meaning + placement + technical presentation).
4. For (ii): build "equivalent Russian" into creative templates and agency workflows; avoid relying on fine print translations.
5. For (i): align trade mark filings with real-world use, and keep an "inspection pack" (certificates/licences + approved templates + internal approval rules).

Conclusion

The 2026 amendments make consumer-facing non-advertising wording a clearer compliance target. Trade marks can preserve foreign-language brand identifiers, but they do not legalise foreign-language promotional or informational text around the brand. The safest approach is to protect what must stay foreign (the mark) and Russify (or properly bilingualise) everything else.

Originally published on the AIPPI Portal (link)