On 16 June 2026, the Russian Constitutional Court issued Ruling No. 39-P in a case brought by Mir Hobby LLC. The company held an exclusive licence to 21 illustrations and the box design of the board game "Mafia. The Whole Family Together" and found allegedly counterfeit copies offered for sale on an online marketplace. After its pre-trial complaint failed, the company sought RUB 9.2 million in compensation. The lower courts dismissed the claim, treating the platform owner as an information intermediary.
The Constitutional Court upheld Article 1253.1(1) and (3) of the Russian Civil Code as constitutional, but clarified the conditions under which a marketplace may rely on intermediary immunity. The fact that a platform is actively involved in the transaction — by processing payments, arranging storage or delivery, or providing the seller-buyer interface — does not automatically deprive it of intermediary status. However, intermediary status does not mean a guaranteed immunity.
According to the Court, marketplace operators must take technical measures aimed at detecting and stopping obvious IP infringements. Red flags may include an unusually low price, imitation of well-known brands, or repeat use by the same seller of IP assets in relation to which the platform has already taken measures. In such cases, the platform may not simply rely on the seller’s warranty that no third-party IP rights are infringed.
At the same time, the Court did not turn marketplaces into private courts. A platform must carry out a minimum review of the complaint: whether the complainant has prima facie evidence of its rights and whether the complaint identifies specific goods or listings. This is also necessary to prevent abuse, including bad-faith complaints used as a competitive tool or forms of so-called patent trolling.
Where the complaint appears substantiated, the proper measure will usually be temporary suspension of the relevant listing, rather than a final ban. This gives the right holder time to bring a court action or seek interim measures. If the complainant fails to go to court within a reasonable time, or if the claim is rejected as unsubstantiated, the marketplace or seller may claim damages caused by the suspension. The platform must also disclose to the seller the information it has about the complainant.
If a complaint is clearly unsubstantiated, the marketplace may refuse to take the requested measures, but it must give written reasons. If a court later finds that refusal unjustified, the platform may lose intermediary protection.
Thus, Russia now has a more structured notice-and-takedown model for marketplace IP disputes. Right holders should submit evidence-based and targeted complaints. Sellers should keep documents confirming lawful use of IP. Marketplaces should implement transparent procedures for reviewing complaints, temporarily suspending listings, sharing information with the parties and tracking repeat infringements.
Source: Russian Constitutional Court Ruling No. 39-P dated 16 June 2026.
The Constitutional Court upheld Article 1253.1(1) and (3) of the Russian Civil Code as constitutional, but clarified the conditions under which a marketplace may rely on intermediary immunity. The fact that a platform is actively involved in the transaction — by processing payments, arranging storage or delivery, or providing the seller-buyer interface — does not automatically deprive it of intermediary status. However, intermediary status does not mean a guaranteed immunity.
According to the Court, marketplace operators must take technical measures aimed at detecting and stopping obvious IP infringements. Red flags may include an unusually low price, imitation of well-known brands, or repeat use by the same seller of IP assets in relation to which the platform has already taken measures. In such cases, the platform may not simply rely on the seller’s warranty that no third-party IP rights are infringed.
At the same time, the Court did not turn marketplaces into private courts. A platform must carry out a minimum review of the complaint: whether the complainant has prima facie evidence of its rights and whether the complaint identifies specific goods or listings. This is also necessary to prevent abuse, including bad-faith complaints used as a competitive tool or forms of so-called patent trolling.
Where the complaint appears substantiated, the proper measure will usually be temporary suspension of the relevant listing, rather than a final ban. This gives the right holder time to bring a court action or seek interim measures. If the complainant fails to go to court within a reasonable time, or if the claim is rejected as unsubstantiated, the marketplace or seller may claim damages caused by the suspension. The platform must also disclose to the seller the information it has about the complainant.
If a complaint is clearly unsubstantiated, the marketplace may refuse to take the requested measures, but it must give written reasons. If a court later finds that refusal unjustified, the platform may lose intermediary protection.
Thus, Russia now has a more structured notice-and-takedown model for marketplace IP disputes. Right holders should submit evidence-based and targeted complaints. Sellers should keep documents confirming lawful use of IP. Marketplaces should implement transparent procedures for reviewing complaints, temporarily suspending listings, sharing information with the parties and tracking repeat infringements.
Source: Russian Constitutional Court Ruling No. 39-P dated 16 June 2026.
