24 February 2025

Unfair Competition and Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Russia

February 24, 2025

BRACE Law Firm ©

Antimonopoly legislation regulates commercial relations between participants in commodity markets and is primarily aimed at maintaining healthy competition. For this purpose, Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated July 26, 2006, On Protection of Competition (the "Competition Protection Law" or the "Law") establishes a special category of offenses: unfair competition. This term implies the use of improper or illegal methods to eliminate competitors. Such behavior violates the interests of other entities and destabilizes market functioning.

Intellectual property objects are frequently involved in unfair competitive struggles. These may include both intellectual activity results (the "IAR") and means of individualization. For example, an entrepreneur may illegally sell an invention patented by a competitor without obtaining the patent holder's consent. Alternatively, an organization might launch a product featuring a logo that is highly similar to a competitor’s logo. Such actions may be recognized as antimonopoly violations. The Competition Protection Law provides protection for intellectual property objects against unfair competition. This protection regime is expressed through the Law’s establishment of methods of unfair competition related to intellectual property objects, as well as the imposition of liability for their violation.

What Constitutes Unfair Competition

In the Russian Federation, activities aimed at unfair competition are prohibited at the constitutional level.[1] Clause 9 of Article 4 of the Competition Protection Law defines unfair competition, and its detailed interpretation is contained in Clause 30 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 dated March 4, 2021, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Courts (the "Plenum No. 2").

Any actions possessing the following characteristics are considered unfair competition:

1. First characteristic: Only an economic entity or a group of persons can carry out actions of unfair competition. Such an entity may be a legal person (both commercial and non-profit), an individual entrepreneur, or a natural person engaged in officially registered, income-generating activities (Cl. 5 Art. 4 of the Competition Protection Law). In the context of antimonopoly legislation, an economic entity is a market participant (the "economic entity", the "entity", the "market participant", or the "person").

A group of persons consists of legal or natural persons between whom a specific relationship exists, allowing one person to influence the actions of another. The varieties of a group of persons are listed in Article 9 of the Competition Protection Law:

A business company and its participant (legal or natural person) owning more than half of the interest in such a company;
A legal person and the person vested with the powers of the sole executive body of that legal person;
A business company and a person (natural or legal) who, based on constituent documents or a contract, is entitled to give that company mandatory instructions;
Legal persons in which the same natural persons constitute more than fifty percent of the collegial executive body or management bodies;
A business company and a person (natural or legal) upon whose proposal the sole executive body of that company was appointed or elected;
A business company and a person (natural or legal) upon whose proposal more than fifty percent of the collegial executive body or the composition of the management body of that company was elected;
A natural person and their close relatives (spouse, parents, children, brothers, sisters);
Persons who, according to the above criteria, are part of a group with the same person, as well as other persons forming a group with any such person based on the listed criteria;
A business company and other persons (natural or legal) who form a group based on any of the above criteria, if these persons own more than half of all voting shares or interests in such a company.

Pursuant to Clause 9 of Article 4 of the Competition Protection Law, unfair competition consists of active steps; however, in practice, it may also manifest as an omission (for example, Art. 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law).

2. Second characteristic: In unfair competition, the violator always pursues the goal of obtaining an advantage in entrepreneurial activity. As a rule, this involves financial gain achieved by reducing the efficiency of competitors' commercial activities. Examples include influencing consumer choice or the ability of market participants to derive advantages from product offerings on the market (Cl. 30 of the Plenum No. 2).

When considering cases of unfair competition, the antimonopoly authority necessarily verifies whether the violator and the victim are competitors. Competition is confirmed by the similarity of main types of activity, the production of products with identical content and functionality, and the presence of the entities in the same market segment and within the same geographical boundaries. [2] If an entity violates another person's rights to intellectual property objects, but no competitive relationship exists between them, no violation of antimonopoly legislation occurs. [3]

A stable position has formed in the enforcement practice of antimonopoly authorities: the elimination of competitors and the strengthening of one's own market position generally cause harm to the business reputation of other entities. This applies to all forms of unfair competition. A negative opinion regarding the entity's business qualities forms in the business community, leading to a loss of competitiveness and other adverse consequences. [4] The loss of business reputation is almost always accompanied by financial losses.

3. Third characteristic: Anticompetitive actions not only violate legislation and business customs, but also contradict the norms of integrity, reasonableness, and justice; that is, they violate commercial ethics. The Plenum No. 2 emphasizes that unfair competition differs from the behavior expected of an economic entity in a similar situation, as such behavior goes "beyond the limits of the exercise of civil rights and honest business practice". The Plenum No. 2 refers to Article 10-bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property dated March 20, 1883 (as amended on October 2, 1979) (the "Paris Convention"): unfair competition is recognized as "any act of competition contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters".

Business customs are market interaction rules that are not approved by law but have formed through practice and gained wide application. [5] As for integrity, reasonableness, and justice, these concepts are not defined by law and are clearly evaluative categories.

At first glance, unfair competition, like any unlawful behavior, should primarily manifest as a violation of a specific legal norm (general civil or industry-specific). Its other characteristics, such as the violation of business customs and contradiction of ethical norms, are difficult to qualify. However, in 2019, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that identifying unfair competition requires considering not only formal legislative violations but also other circumstances:

Whether such behavior affects the rights and interests of other entities;
Whether it is aimed at obtaining advantages at the expense of market participants, including causing them losses or diminishing their business reputation;
Whether the method chosen by the economic entity to obtain advantages is "compatible with honest entrepreneurship — whether it meets the requirements of legislation and (or) the customs established in commercial turnover, and perceptions of integrity, reasonableness, and justice".

Therefore, a distinctive feature of unfair competition is its negative impact on other market participants and its deviation from the norm of conscientious behavior.[6] For example, using a patented invention without concluding a license agreement with the right holder misleads other bona fide market participants who have concluded license agreements. They may form an erroneous opinion that one can work with this invention without a license agreement and that obtaining the right holder's consent is not mandatory. [7]

This approach was actively supported by FAS Russia, which pointed out the need to distinguish violations of specific articles of civil, tax, or other industry legislation from acts of unfair competition, which may affect a broader area of social norms (commercial ethics and business customs in a specific market segment). [8]

4. Fourth characteristic: Unfair competition results in financial losses (actual or potential) for market participants, and their business reputation may also suffer. It must be noted that the structure of such losses differs from the generally accepted classification.

Civil legislation distinguishes between two types of losses (Cl. 2 Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the "Civil Code")):

Actual damage: expenses already incurred or to be incurred by the injured person to restore the violated right, as well as the loss of or damage to property;
Lost profits: unearned income that would have been received under normal conditions if the injured person's rights had not been violated.

Losses from unfair competition are structured differently:

Actual losses: include only expenses actually incurred;
Potential losses: expenses that must be incurred, as well as lost profits.

Thus, actual damage may be classified as either actual or potential losses.

To qualify a market participant’s behavior as unfair competition, all four of the listed characteristics must be present in their entirety. If at least one of them is missing (not proven), the entity’s actions will not constitute an offense. [9]

Types of Unfair Competition in the Use of Intellectual Property

Specific types of unfair competition, including violations against intellectual property objects, are contained in Chapter 2.1 of the Competition Protection Law. The list of illegal actions is open-ended (Art. 14.8 of the Competition Protection Law, Cl. 32 of the Plenum No. 2).

The intellectual property regime holds a special place in antimonopoly legislation: certain prohibitions and restrictions of the Competition Protection Law do not apply to the exercise of exclusive rights.

First, the exercise by a right holder of its exclusive rights to intellectual activity results and means of individualization is not considered an abuse of a dominant position on the market (Part 4 Art. 10 of the Competition Protection Law).

Second, agreements between entities related to the granting or alienation of rights to intellectual activity results or means of individualization are permitted (Part 9 Art. 11 of the Competition Protection Law). Such agreements are not considered anticompetitive even if they:

Lead to the establishment or maintenance of prices, discounts, markups, or surcharges;
Contribute to changing or maintaining prices at auctions;
Lead to the division of the commodity market according to the territorial principle, the volume of goods sold or purchased, their assortment, or the composition of sellers or buyers;
Provoke a reduction or termination of product production;
Result in a refusal to conclude contracts with a specific entity-market participant.

Third, vertical agreements (i.e., agreements between a seller and a buyer) regulating the buyer’s sale of goods under a trademark or other means of individualization of the seller or manufacturer are permitted (Item 2 Part 2 Art. 11 of the Competition Protection Law). Such agreements do not violate competition even if they influence the resale price of the product.

Types of unfair competition involving intellectual property objects were established and came into force on January 5, 2016, through Federal Law No. 275-FZ dated October 5, 2015, On Amending the Federal Law On Protection of Competition and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (the "Fourth Antimonopoly Package"). This law established a new structure for antimonopoly violations:

A classification of types of unfair competition related to intellectual property objects appeared;
Violations against IAR and against means of individualization were distinguished and distributed across different articles of the Competition Protection Law;
A new type of violation was established: "confusion" with other goods or with a competitor's activities.

Currently, the main types of unfair competition in the use of intellectual property objects are established in three articles of the Competition Protection Law:

Unfair competition related to the acquisition and use of exclusive rights to means of individualization (Art. 14.4 of the Competition Protection Law);
Unfair competition related to the use of intellectual activity results (Art. 14.5 of the Competition Protection Law);
Unfair competition expressed in creating confusion (Art. 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law).

Since the Competition Protection Law does not have a structural section that clearly separates violations related to intellectual property from other types of antimonopoly violations, alternative interpretations of the classification of unfair competition can sometimes be found. For example, GOST R 58223-2018 National Standard of the Russian Federation. Intellectual Property. Antimonopoly Regulation and Protection against Unfair Competition, approved by Order of Rosstandart No. 597-st dated September 13, 2018 (the "GOST R 58223-2018"), was issued in 2018. In addition to the violations listed in Articles 14.4, 14.5, and 14.6 of the Law, this document classifies all types of violations specified in Chapter 2.1 of the Law as forms of unfair competition using intellectual property, namely:

Discrediting, i.e., the dissemination of false information about a competitor (Art. 14.1 of the Competition Protection Law);
Misleading regarding a product, its qualities and properties, quantity, manufacturer, and conditions of sale (Art. 14.2 of the Competition Protection Law);
Improper comparison of an entity or its product with other entities-market participants or products (Art. 14.3 of the Competition Protection Law);
Illegal acquisition, use, and disclosure of commercial secrets or other information protected by law (Art. 14.7 of the Competition Protection Law).

Such a classification is debatable. The violations specified in Articles 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, and 14.7 of the Competition Protection Law are primarily related to the illegal use or dissemination of information. They are not always committed using intellectual property objects. If such objects are involved in a violation, it is qualified either under other articles of the Competition Protection Law (14.4, 14.5, or 14.6) or under multiple articles of the Law simultaneously. For example, advertising a product using packaging that externally resembles a competitor's packaging violates both Article 14.2 and Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law. It should be noted that GOST R 58223-2018 is not mandatory for application. Therefore, in matters of classification and structuring, it is advisable to adhere to the traditional approach: unfair competition involving intellectual property is regulated by Articles 14.4, 14.5, and 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law.

Illegal Acquisition and Use of Exclusive Rights to Means of Individualization

Article 14.4 of the Competition Protection Law establishes a prohibition on unfair competition related to the acquisition and use of exclusive rights to means of individualization of a legal person, goods, works, or services.

The use of an intellectual property object that has not been authorized by the owner, when such authorization is required by law, is considered illegal (Item 9.5 of FAS Russia Letter dated December 24, 2015).

Means of individualization of products include (Item 9.6 of FAS Russia Letter No. IA/74666/15 dated December 24, 2015, On the Application of the "Fourth Antimonopoly Package" (the "FAS Letter dated December 24, 2015"), and FAS Russia Letter No. AK/65717/17 dated September 22, 2017, On the Issue of Distinguishing the Application of Articles 14.5 and 14.6 of the Federal Law On Protection of Competition (the "FAS Letter dated September 22, 2017")):

Trademarks and service marks;
Appellations of origin.

Means of individualization of legal persons include (Item 9.6 of the FAS Letter dated December 24, 2015, and the FAS Letter dated September 22, 2017):

Business names;
Commercial designations.

A trademark is a designation intended to individualize the goods of legal persons or individual entrepreneurs (Part 1 Art. 1477 of the Civil Code). If a designation individualizes works or services, it is called a "service mark", and the rules regulating trademarks apply to it. The exclusive right to a trademark is confirmed by a certificate registered in the State Register of Trademarks (Art. 1481 of the Civil Code). FAS points out that a violation of exclusive rights arises only if the injured competitor possesses a trademark certificate; a registered application does not provide opportunities for such protection (FAS Letter dated December 24, 2015).

A business name is a means of individualizing a commercial organization that identifies it as a participant in civil circulation (Part 1 Art. 1473 of the Civil Code). A business name consists of two parts: the legal form of the entity and the name itself. The use of only those words that designate the organization's type of activity is not permitted (Part 2 Art. 1473 of the Civil Code). A business name must be recorded in the constituent documents and entered into the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (the "USRLE"); rights to it arise for the entity from that moment. The complexity of protecting this designation stems from the fact that the registration authority is not obliged to check organization names for similarity or identity, and the law allows for the registration of legal persons with any names (FAS Letter dated December 24, 2015). Therefore, hundreds of organizations, for example, named SPECTRUM LLC, may operate on the market. For additional individualization, some companies include the business name in their trademark or service mark (Part 2 Art. 1476 of the Civil Code). Such a name is entitled to protection regardless of the protection of the trademark or service mark (for example, if the trademark was not registered, but the business name was entered into the USRLE, the organization has the right to protect such a name).

A commercial designation is a special type of individualization means that may be used by persons engaged in entrepreneurial activity (Art. 1538 of the Civil Code). This designation is intended to individualize an enterprise as a property complex. This implies the enterprise as a set of all types of property (buildings, structures, land plots, movable property, rights of claim, debt, intellectual rights, and other intangible assets). Such an enterprise is considered a real estate object (Art. 132 of the Civil Code). One commercial designation may be used for several enterprises, but individualizing one enterprise with several commercial designations is not permitted (Part 2 Art. 1538 of the Civil Code). Unlike business names, commercial designations are not recorded in constituent documents and are not entered into the USRLE. Exclusive rights to a commercial designation arise for an entity only if it has clear distinctive features and its use is known within a specific territory. That is, a commercial designation is protected by law only if it allows for the unambiguous identification of a specific enterprise. A commercial designation may fully or partially include a business name, but the rights to it are protected separately and independently from the rights to the business name. A similar rule applies when such a designation is used in a trademark: rights to the commercial designation operate and are protected independently of the trademark protection (Art. 1541 of the Civil Code).

An appellation of origin is the name of a geographical object (including a country, urban or rural settlement, or locality) that has become known due to a given product. Furthermore, the special properties of such a product are interconnected with the characteristic features of the geographical object, its natural conditions, and the human factor (Art. 1516 of the Civil Code). Such an appellation may use a modern or historical, official or unofficial, full or abbreviated geographical name; it may also include a geographical name or be derived from one. An appellation of origin should be distinguished from a broader method of individualization: the geographical indication. Such an indication identifies a product whose characteristics (primarily quality and reputation) are related to its geographical origin. At least one stage of product production must take place on the territory of such a geographical object, whereas all stages and steps of production must be located on the territory of the appellation of origin. It should be noted: rights to a geographical indication and an appellation of origin are exclusive and subject to state registration (Articles 1517 and 1518 of the Civil Code), but Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law and the FAS Letter dated September 22, 2017, list only the appellation of origin as a protected means of individualization.

Article 14.4 of the Competition Protection Law presupposes a violation of an exclusive right. An exclusive right is a property right to IAR and means of individualization (Art. 1226 of the Civil Code). The right holder may, at its discretion, use the object of the right, dispose of it, and allow or prohibit its use by other persons. Furthermore, the absence of an express prohibition does not yet mean consent to use. Methods of disposing of an exclusive right generally resemble disposing of property (Art. 1233 of the Civil Code):

Alienation of the exclusive right to a third party: in this case, rights to the IAR or means of individualization are transferred in full (Art. 1234 of the Civil Code). A contract for such alienation must be concluded in writing;
License agreement: granting the right to the temporary use of the exclusive right object. A license agreement defines the limits, terms, methods, and conditions for using the transferred object, as well as the territory of such use (Art. 1235 of the Civil Code).

A violation of Article 14.4 of the Competition Protection Law arises upon the presence of a combination of two circumstances: [10]

Acquisition of an exclusive right for the purpose of its further unfair use. Examples include registering another's trademark, registering a legal person under a competitor’s business name, or concluding an illegal license agreement (for example, with an unauthorized person);
Subsequent unfair use of the exclusive right. This implies the violator’s activities in the same market segment as those entities whose right was illegally registered or otherwise acquired.

Regarding a trademark, the unfairness of actions must already exist at the moment the violator applied for the registration of such a trademark. That is, as of the filing date, the violator must already know that it is using another person's trademark.[11] If the antimonopoly authority issues a decision on a violation under Article 14.4 of the Competition Protection Law regarding a trademark, the interested person sends this decision to the federal executive body for intellectual property (Rospatent) to invalidate the trademark's protection regime.

A violation of rights to means of individualization of a legal person is considered to be the registration and use of a business name or commercial designation identical to the name or designation of a competitor who began operations at an earlier date (FAS Letter dated September 22, 2017). Business names are not registered with Rospatent; therefore, in this case, the antimonopoly authority issues an order to the violator to cease using the business name.

Illegal Use of Intellectual Activity Results

Article 14.5 of the Competition Protection Law establishes a prohibition on unfair competition related to the illegal use of intellectual activity results when introducing goods into circulation. The structure of this offense allows for the identification of its specifics and distinctive features.

First, the objects of protection from unfair competition are the IAR listed in Subitems 1–12 of Clause 1 of Article 1225 of the Civil Code (FAS Letter dated September 22, 2017):

Works of science, literature, and art;
Computer programs and databases;
Performances;
Phonograms;
Broadcasting (over-the-air or cable);
Inventions and utility models;
Industrial designs;
Selection achievements;
Topologies of integrated circuits;
Trade secrets (know-how).

Second, the illegal action is expressed in the fact that the IAR are involved in product circulation on the market.

According to the general rules of civil legislation, the illegal use of an IAR is any unauthorized use without the right holder’s consent. The person who owns the exclusive right to the IAR (the right holder) may, at its discretion, allow or prohibit other persons from using the IAR (Art. 1229 of the Civil Code). Without the right holder's consent, the use of an IAR is unlawful.

In this case, the offense is constituted not by any unauthorized use, but by actions related to involving the product in commercial circulation (Item 9.5 of the FAS Letter dated December 24, 2015). Introduction into circulation implies not only a transaction (for example, sale, transfer for temporary use, or exchange), but also the placement of offers to sell the product, demonstration at exhibitions or fairs, and the sending of commercial offers—that is, advertising actions. [12] Any product promotion is an integral part of its introduction to the market; therefore, the list of methods for introducing goods into circulation using an IAR is not exhaustive (FAS Russia Letter No. AK/44651/17 dated June 30, 2017, On the Practice of Proving Violations Qualified in Accordance with Item 2 of Article 14.6 On Protection of Competition (the "FAS Letter dated June 30, 2017")).

Third, the scope of this norm does not extend to the means of individualization of a competitor entity. If unfair competition affects means of individualization (trademarks, business names, or commercial designations), it falls under Article 14.4 or Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law (FAS Letter dated September 22, 2017).

Using a utility model after the date of publication of information regarding the termination of the patent's validity does not constitute unfair competition. When a patent’s validity is terminated prematurely, the legal monopoly regime for the technical or artistic-design solution ends and the "public domain" regime is activated, which lasts until the expiration of the patent term provided for by law (Item 21 of the Review of the Practice of Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Collegial Bodies of FAS Russia for the Period from July 1, 2018, to July 1, 2019 (the "FAS Practice Review")).

The most common violation of Article 14.5 of the Competition Protection Law is the use of a patented IAR without concluding a license agreement with the right holder or continuing to use the IAR after such a contract has expired. The unfair competition in such actions is expressed as follows: [13]

The violator introduces the product into circulation and fails to pay license fees to the right holder, thereby reducing its costs;
The violator gains advantages over other competitors who refrain from the illegal production and sale of the IAR until the expiration of the patent protection terms;
As a result, the violator gains a market share and the profit that the competitor could have expected.

Confusion with Competitors' Products

Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law establishes a prohibition on unfair competition expressed in actions (or omissions) that may lead to so-called "confusion". The essence of this violation is that an entity designs its products (goods, works, services, as well as premises interiors) in such a way that consumers may mistake the violator's product or activity for the product or activity of another entity-market participant who is a competitor of the offender. When the appearance or design of a product is strongly associated by the consumer with a specific manufacturer or seller, and another entity illegally individualizes its product in a similar manner, "confusion" occurs. As a result, the consumer reacts to a familiar designation and mistakenly takes the violator's product for a competitor's product that is already known to them (FAS Letter dated June 30, 2017).

The concept of confusion was introduced into the Competition Protection Law as part of the Fourth Antimonopoly Package. At that time, it was a new legal construct borrowed from the Paris Convention, which classifies as types of unfair competition actions that may lead to confusion "regarding the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a competitor" (Art. 10-bis of the Paris Convention, Item 9.6 of the FAS Letter dated December 24, 2015, and the FAS Letter dated September 22, 2017).

The subject of confusion may be:

Competitors' goods (including works or services) that are in market circulation;
A competitor's activity (referring to economic or commercial activity on the market).

The structure of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law consists of two parts, which differ by types of means of individualization and by methods of their illegal use.

The first part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law provides for confusion with the following means of individualization:

Trademarks;
Business names;
Commercial designations;
Appellations of origin.

A violation of the first part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law is expressed in the use of designations that have an external similarity to competitors' protected means of individualization (the "illegal designations"):

The illegal designation is identical to the means of individualization, i.e., total identity with another's trademark, business name, commercial designation, or appellation of origin exists;
The illegal designations, while not identical, have such a similarity to another's means of individualization that they can be confused as a result.

Anticompetitive behavior within the framework of the first part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law is expressed in the use of an illegal designation in any of the following ways:

Placing the illegal designation on goods, labels, or packaging;
Using the illegal designation on the Internet, including in a domain name and other methods of addressing;
Any other use of the illegal designation regarding goods in circulation on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Note that the list of methods for anticompetitive use of means of individualization is open-ended; therefore, any behavior that uses external similarity to mislead consumers regarding the manufacturer or seller of the product, as well as its properties and characteristics, will be considered illegal.

The second part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law provides for confusion with the following means of individualizing goods:

Appearance;
Packaging;
Label;
Name;
Color scheme;
Trade dress of the product or activity as a whole (including corporate clothing, sales floor design, or window displays);
Other elements of individualization of the competitor or its product.

Anticompetitive behavior within the framework of the second part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law is expressed in the following actions:

Copying, i.e., the reproduction of the product’s appearance and the introduction of such a product into circulation;
Imitation, i.e., imitating a product to create an "impression among consumers that such goods belong to the line of imitated goods" (Item 9.6 of the FAS Letter dated December 24, 2015).

Copying recreates the exact image of the product; such products are counterfeit. Imitation is simply an externally similar item, but without total identity to the original.

Copying alone without introducing the product to the market is not an antimonopoly violation, although it may violate protected intellectual property rights under general civil norms. Furthermore, copying or imitation is not considered unlawful if it is dictated solely by the functional application of the product (Item 9.5 of the FAS Letter dated December 24, 2015).

When considering cases related to confusion, the antimonopoly authority must determine which entity first introduced the disputed products into civil circulation: the defendant or its competitor-applicant (Item 19 of the FAS Practice Review). The injured competitor must confirm with documents that it was the first to begin promoting this product on the market. Such evidence may include advertising, the mailing of commercial offers, the conclusion of contracts prior to the identified violation date, or participation in exhibitions or procurement. Additionally, the sequence of entry into the market is proven by consumer surveys, which must confirm the recognizability of a specific manufacturer or seller precisely based on the disputed means of individualization (Item 3 of the FAS Letter dated June 30, 2017).

The use of trade dress is considered illegal when the violator has borrowed such style as a whole, rather than just its individual elements. For example, during a store’s design, a similar sign design was recreated, and a similar color scheme was used on the store’s facade windows, which ultimately led to a similarity with the competitor’s retail chain objects (Item 18 of the FAS Practice Review).

The antimonopoly authority is obliged to carefully assess the similarities and differences between the compared goods, products, or design styles. In its decision, FAS must provide a reasoned conclusion regarding the "distinctive capacity" of the means of individualization: whether it is possible to confuse the violator’s product with the injured competitor’s product. Partial product similarity dictated by business customs regarding similar goods in a given market segment does not constitute confusion. If a consumer is able to distinguish such products by specific features (for example, different text fonts, differences in color schemes, or design elements), then the general external similarity is not considered an offense (Item 22 of the FAS Practice Review).

The methodology for proving unlawful similarity is set out in the FAS Letter dated June 30, 2017, which explains the details of applying the second part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law.

Similarity may be established in various ways:

Visual inspection by antimonopoly authority officials—in cases where design elements are completely identical, i.e., copied;
Sociological or marketing research. This method involves surveying a wide range of respondents who must assess the similarity and difference of means of individualization (trade dress, design elements, appearance). Such research allows for an understanding of how the consumer perceives the disputed individualization elements and how high the probability is of purchasing the violator's product while mistaking it for the competitor's product. It is also important to establish whether a consumer might form the impression that the violator’s products are somehow related to the competitor entity (for example, a parallel product line). Consumer opinion and perception can seriously affect the redistribution of market demand. As a result of such marketing analysis, the antimonopoly authority concludes whether the disputed products are fully or partially identical. Conducting such research is the recommended and preferred means of proof;
Expert opinions or opinions of specialists familiar with theoretical and practical issues of establishing similarity, difference, and confusion of means of individualization. For example, patent attorneys in the field of trademarks may issue such opinions. FAS notes that an expert examination does not have special evidentiary force, i.e., it does not have advantages over other types of evidence. If one party has submitted such an opinion, it should be suggested that the other party submit a similar opinion. This will allow for a full and comprehensive assessment of the circumstances, especially when the special knowledge of specialists or experts is required.

When conducting marketing analysis, it should be considered that consumer opinion is often subjective, and the assessment of external individualization means is not always adequate. Human perception depends on many additional factors:

Individual sensory characteristics (visual acuity, memory properties);
The consumer's subjective state at the moment of purchase (lack of time to evaluate and study the product, emotional state).

Furthermore, the research should not consider situations where the choice of product is determined solely by its functional characteristics and does not depend at all on appearance or design method:

Strictly based on technical and functional characteristics;
By a specific brand, manufacturer, or according to indications for use based on recommendations from qualified specialists (for example, purchasing a prescription drug at a pharmacy).

Individualization of a product is considered unfair only if it causes the consumer to incorrectly identify the manufacturer or seller. The use of generally accepted design elements that have become established in business circulation and are used by many manufacturers or sellers of similar products is not a violation. For example, a pack of butter always has a rectangular shape. Another example: on ice cream packaging, a generally accepted color combination of flavor additives is used: brown symbolizes chocolate, and green symbolizes a nut additive. [14]

Articles 14.5 and 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law

In some cases, difficulties may arise in distinguishing between the violations established in Articles 14.5 and 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law. For example, if the illegal use of another's industrial design to design a product led to confusion, it is necessary to choose the applicable article of the Law to qualify such an action: 14.5 (illegal use of an IAR) or 14.6 (confusion). In another case, the appearance of a product that was not registered as an industrial design at all was copied — which norm qualifies such an action? To solve these problems, one must consider not only the differences between Articles 14.5 and 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law, but also the differences between the first and second parts of Article 14.6 of the Law.

The second part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law has specifics compared to other forms of unfair competition in the use of intellectual property: it protects those means of individualization that are not registered, i.e., are not a protected object of exclusive rights.

The solution for a product’s appearance is expressed in an industrial design. Therefore, a question may arise as to what the object of protection is under the second part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law: a patented industrial design or simply the appearance of a product without any special registration? An industrial design is not a means of individualization; it belongs to intellectual activity results, and therefore, in the FAS Letter dated September 22, 2017, it is included in the list of IAR protected by Article 14.5 of the Competition Protection Law. The appearance of a product acts as an object of exclusive right only when it has the status of an industrial design confirmed by a patent (Art. 1352 of the Civil Code). A mandatory condition for issuing a patent is the novelty and originality of the design; it must be distinguished by aesthetic features of appearance (shape, configuration, ornament or color combination, lines and contours of the item, texture or material factor). If the appearance and characteristics of an item are dictated solely by its technical function, it is not an industrial design, and a patent for such an item will not be issued.

However, in practice, product appearance — specifically product design, color scheme, or an establishment's interior style — is not always registered as an object of exclusive rights. In this regard, FAS Russia notes:

The first part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law refers to means of individualization subject to special protection (i.e., registration). However, it does not cover all cases of confusion. Therefore, the second part of this norm is its logical supplement and is intended for those means of individualization that do not imply or require registration (FAS Letter dated June 30, 2017);
Products can be individualized not only by registered designations but also by general appearance, design elements, and other means. [15]

The illegal use of patented industrial designs falls under Article 14.5 of the Competition Protection Law. If this resulted in confusion, such actions are also qualified under Part 2 of Article 14.6 of the Law. A clear example is a case involving the illegal use of a cafe's stylistic design. The right holder had patented the decorative design of the establishment’s facade and interior as industrial designs. The violator used identical color and compositional solutions. Thus, both buildings have a similar shape, and the external color scheme matches. The color scheme of the establishment’s interior also matches the competitor’s color scheme. Similarity in furniture design and the interior design of the premises is observed. As a result, the violator’s actions were qualified under both Articles 14.5 and 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law simultaneously. [16]

Thus, the means of individualization listed in the first part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law (trademark, business name, commercial designation, appellation of origin) are protected objects exclusively on the condition of their registration. The means of individualization specified in the second part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law are not subject to registration but are still protected against unfair competition in the form of confusion. If the violator illegally used an intellectual activity result to create confusion, such actions also fall under Article 14.5 of the Competition Protection Law.

Distinction Between Unfair Competition and Counterfeiting

Unfair competition using intellectual property objects must be distinguished from the general civil offense related to counterfeit materials (the "counterfeiting" or "counterfeit").

Material carriers are recognized as counterfeit upon the presence of two mandatory conditions (Part 4 Art. 1252 of the Civil Code):

An IAR or means of individualization is expressed in the material carriers;
The manufacturing, distribution, or other use of these material carriers, including import, transportation, or storage, violates the right holder’s exclusive right.

For example, goods, labels, or packaging on which a trademark or a similar designation (Part 1 Art. 1515 of the Civil Code) or a geographical indication (Part 4 Art. 1519 of the Civil Code) is illegally placed are considered counterfeit.

At first glance, Articles 14.5 and 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law and counterfeiting appear identical. However, these are different violations in terms of composition, legal character, and protection methods.

The difference between counterfeiting and unfair competition involving intellectual property objects is as follows:

Counterfeit products always represent a material carrier, i.e., a thing (Part 1 Art. 1227 of the Civil Code). In unfair competition, a product is introduced into circulation, which does not always manifest in the form of a thing; it may be a work or service in the performance of which an exclusive rights object is involved. When the commercial circulation of a product, work, or service is accompanied by the illegal use of an IAR, an offense under Article 14.5 of the Competition Protection Law is formed. If means of individualization are used that lead to confusion with competitors' means of individualization, a violation of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law occurs. Sometimes, in unfair competition, a material counterfeit carrier may not exist at all: for example, the use of another's business name or commercial designation in audio advertising;
The violations differ by subjective composition. The subject of unfair competition is always an entrepreneur — a person performing commercial activities in a specific market segment. The subject of counterfeiting can be any person, both natural and legal (both commercial and non-profit organizations). For example, a citizen may manufacture a counterfeit product and sell it to another citizen privately; this will be a violation of civil legislation but not of the Competition Protection Law;
The scope of unfair competition actions is limited to the sphere of market relations. The Competition Protection Law exclusively regulates illegal involvement in commercial circulation, i.e., the introduction into the market of a product, work, or service. Whereas under the Civil Code, any use (including manufacturing, storage, transportation) is considered counterfeiting, not just commercial circulation;
Unfair competition always pursues a clear objective focus: to obtain an advantage in economic activity, to improve one's position in a market segment, and to eliminate competitors. In counterfeiting, the objectives can theoretically be anything;
Protection methods for unfair competition and counterfeiting differ. Counterfeit materials are always subject to seizure and destruction by court decision without compensation if a material carrier is found with the violator (Part 4 Art. 1252, Part 2 Art. 1515 of the Civil Code). [17] Essentially, the legal institution of counterfeiting is aimed precisely at the physical seizure and destruction of counterfeit items. If withdrawing the product from circulation is impossible due to the observance of public interests, the violator will be forced to remove the illegal images of the trademark, geographical indication, or appellation of origin (Part 2 Art. 1515, Part 1 Art. 1537 of the Civil Code). Intellectual property violations in the field of the Competition Protection Law entail other consequences. The entity’s actions will be considered by the antimonopoly authority according to the special procedure of Chapter 9 of the Competition Protection Law. Upon identifying signs of unfair competition, the antimonopoly authority will issue an order to the violator, and upon establishing the fact of an administrative violation, administrative proceedings are initiated;
Administrative liability of the violator under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (the "CAO RF") also has differences. Liability for the illegal use of works, phonograms, inventions, utility models, and industrial designs is provided for in Article 7.12 of the CAO RF. This article regulates the violation of copyright and related rights. Liability for the illegal use of means of individualization, including for production for sale and realization, is established in Article 14.10 of the CAO RF. Both norms contain a proviso that if the violator’s actions show signs of unfair competition, liability arises under Part 2 of Article 14.33 of the CAO RF. This norm is dedicated specifically to unfair competition: introducing a product into circulation with the illegal use of an IAR or means of individualization.

Thus, counterfeiting is a broader phenomenon that covers a significant volume of violations against intellectual property and the rights to it. Liability for counterfeiting arises upon the condition of a direct violation of Civil Code provisions. Counterfeit products are subject to seizure and destruction — this is an integral part of the sanction for such actions, as established in the Civil Code and the CAO RF. Unfair competition, on the other hand, is a narrower (industry-specific) violation of antimonopoly legislation. In this case, the violator aims to strengthen its market position and eliminate competitors, and its behavior not only violates a specific article of the law but also contradicts the principles of commercial ethics.

Undoubtedly, unfair competition and counterfeiting may combine in a single violation (for example, forging a product with a trademark image on it and selling such a product on the market). In such a case, the violator will be liable under both Civil Code norms and the Competition Protection Law. However, administrative liability will be qualified under the CAO RF norm regulating specifically unfair competition (Part 2 Art. 14.33 of the CAO RF).

Consideration of Cases of Unfair Competition in the Use of Intellectual Property

The procedure for bringing to liability for unfair competition begins with the initiation of a case on a violation of antimonopoly legislation according to the rules of Chapter 9 of the Competition Protection Law. This may be based not only on an entity's complaint but also on the identification of signs of an offense during an inspection by the antimonopoly authority, as well as the receipt of information from state bodies or from open sources (mass media).

It is important to consider that the circle of potential applicants who may file a complaint regarding unfair competition with FAS differs from the circle of entities entitled to file a statement of claim against a violator in court: [18]

Any applicant may file a complaint with FAS regarding anticompetitive behavior, even if their personal rights and interests are not affected. This is because cases on violations of antimonopoly legislation are aimed at protecting the public interest;
Only the entity whose rights are violated as a result of unfair market actions may file a statement of claim in court, as litigation is aimed at protecting private interests. The plaintiff must prove the fact of the violation of its rights in court.

The procedure for considering cases of unfair competition using intellectual property objects has one significant difference. According to general rules, upon identifying a violation, the antimonopoly authority is first obliged to issue a warning to the violator to cease the violation or eliminate its consequences (Art. 39.1 of the Competition Protection Law). The period for executing the warning is at least ten days. If the violator executes such a warning in a timely manner, no case on an antimonopoly legislation violation is initiated, and the entity is also not brought to administrative liability. However, regarding Articles 14.4, 14.5, and 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law, these rules do not apply. Therefore, if an entity’s actions show signs of a violation of rights to intellectual property objects that simultaneously violate competition, the antimonopoly authority does not issue a warning but immediately proceeds to initiate and consider the case.

Following the consideration of the case, the antimonopoly authority issues a decision containing a reasoned justification and conclusions on the composition of the violation (Art. 41 of the Competition Protection Law). If the illegal actions have not ceased by this point, an additional document — an order — is drafted. Based on the order, the violator is obliged to perform certain actions, primarily to cease its illegal behavior within the established period (Part 4 Art. 41, Art. 50 of the Competition Protection Law).

The order is prepared simultaneously with the decision. If grounds exist to bring the violator to administrative liability, the antimonopoly authority records in the same decision the transfer of materials for the initiation of an administrative offense case according to the CAO RF procedure. [19] If the illegal actions have already ceased by the time the decision is rendered, no order is issued, but the violator may still be brought to administrative liability. [20]

The antimonopoly authority may oblige the violator to transfer to the federal budget the income received from illegal actions (Part 3 Art. 51 of the Competition Protection Law).[21] This obligation is specified in the order. Only those amounts received directly as a result of the illegal actions are subject to transfer, not the violator’s entire revenue from product sales.[22] If the entity has executed such an order and transferred the income to the budget, it is not brought to administrative liability.

This financial measure of coercion is applied considering a number of conditions: [23]

The entity violated specifically competition protection legislation (rather than just general civil norms on the protection of exclusive rights);
The fact of the violation was established by the antimonopoly authority according to the Chapter 9 procedure of the Competition Protection Law, which provides the violator with certain defense tools;
The unfair competition caused significant, obvious, and direct damage to other competitor entities;
The violation is of a gross and demonstrative nature.

A decision or order of the antimonopoly authority may be appealed in an arbitration court within three months from the date of its adoption. [24]

Administrative Liability for Unfair Competition in the Use of Intellectual Property

The procedure for bringing to administrative liability is performed according to the rules of the CAO RF. Liability for unfair competition related to IAR and means of individualization is established in Part 2 of Article 14.33 of the CAO RF.

If a violator illegally used intellectual activity results or means of individualization when introducing a product (work or service) into circulation, it faces administrative punishment:

For officials: a fine in the amount of 20,000 rubles or disqualification for a term of up to three years. Disqualification may consist of a ban on holding a civil service position or an organization’s management position, as well as performing other activities related to managing a legal person (for example, being present on a board of directors or a supervisory board). Disqualification may also impose a ban on performing certain types of professional, expert, or specialized activities (Art. 3.11 of the CAO RF);
For legal persons: a fine in the amount of 1/100 to 15/100 of the violator's revenue from the sale of the product (work or service) on whose market the offense was committed, but in any case not less than 100,000 rubles. Revenue refers only to the income from selling the product with the illegal use of the IAR or means of individualization (Item 18 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 11 dated February 17, 2011, On Certain Issues of Application of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (the "Plenum of the SAC RF No. 11")).

Items 16, 17, and 19 of the Plenum of the SAC RF No. 11 set out methodological recommendations for applying Part 2 of Article 14.33 of the CAO RF:

When considering the circumstances of the case, not only the norms of the Competition Protection Law are applied, but also Article 10-bis of the Paris Convention. Unfair competition may not only violate legal norms but also customs "in industrial and commercial matters" (that is, violation of commercial ethics and business customs);
It is necessary to distinguish administrative liability for unfair competition from administrative liability for counterfeiting. Thus, if unfair competition exists when introducing a product into circulation with the illegal use of another's trademark, service mark, appellation of origin, or similar designations, liability arises under Part 2 of Article 14.33 of the CAO RF. If the violator committed similar actions, but they show no signs of unfair competition, Part 2 of Article 14.10 of the CAO RF is applied, which provides for liability for production for the purpose of sale or for the sale of a product with the illegal reproduction of another's means of individualization;
When qualifying a violation, it is important to assess the violator's purpose. If actions are aimed at obtaining advantages in performing entrepreneurial activity, increasing the volume of products sold, or eliminating competitors, this indicates unfair competition;
Liability under Part 2 of Article 14.33 of the CAO RF arises not for any illegal use of an IAR or means of individualization, but only when such an action is accompanied by the introduction of a product, work, or service onto the commercial market;
The entity that first introduced products with the illegal use of IAR or means of individualization into circulation will be considered the offender;
If the subject of an offense under Part 2 of Article 14.33 of the CAO RF is counterfeit products, the court may render a decision on its seizure and compulsory destruction at the violator's expense. In the structure of the CAO RF, confiscation is an independent measure of administrative punishment. Part 2 of Article 14.33 of the CAO RF does not list confiscation as an applicable sanction. However, in this case, this will be considered not as confiscation, but as the seizure from illegal possession of the offense's subject (Part 3 Art. 3.7, Part 3 Art. 29.10 of the CAO RF). Therefore, no contradiction or application of an additional punishment measure arises. This approach corresponds to the general civil principles of protection against counterfeit: counterfeit products must be seized and destroyed (Part 4 Art. 1252, Part 2 Art. 1515 of the Civil Code). This is a significant difference between administrative liability for unfair competition involving counterfeit items and administrative liability specifically for counterfeiting: in Part 1 of Article 7.12 and Article 14.10 of the CAO RF, the confiscation of counterfeit goods is expressly provided for as a measure of punishment.

Unfair competition is considered a serious act; therefore, some standard procedural defense tools are not applied in this case:

Unfair competition is not an insignificant violation. Therefore, it will not be possible to replace punishment with an oral warning. According to general rules, a violator may escape punishment by using the "insignificance" regime. If an act is recognized as insignificant, the entity is released from administrative liability and is given an oral warning (Art. 2.9 of the CAO RF). Insignificance is an evaluative category and is applied individually in each specific situation, but the main criterion is the presence of a threat to public relations in the entity’s actions.[25] Antimonopoly violations (including unfair competition) are generally not recognized as insignificant: they contradict not only private but also public interests. By violating antimonopoly norms, a person neglects their public law duties. Such behavior possesses a high degree of social danger. Therefore, if an entity is brought to liability under Part 2 of Article 14.33 of the CAO RF, it is not subject to release from punishment due to insignificance;
The fine cannot be replaced with a warning, even if the violation was committed for the first time. The CAO RF establishes a general rule: if a violation is committed for the first time and identified during state control or supervision, the punishment must be replaced with a warning (Part 1 Art. 4.1.1 of the CAO RF). However, this rule does not apply to unfair competition (Part 2 Art. 4.1.1 of the CAO RF). Therefore, the entity will be subjected to administrative punishment even if it has not been brought to liability under Part 2 of Article 14.33 of the CAO RF before.

Concluding Findings

In concluding the article, some summarizing findings can be made. The system of protection against unfair competition involving intellectual property is an important element of the struggle against antimonopoly violations and possesses a number of features:

Unfair competition is not any violation against the intellectual property regime, but only actions aimed at eliminating competitors and strengthening the violator's positions on the commercial market;
Unfair competition involving intellectual property arises only when the violator used intellectual property objects in the market circulation of goods, works, or services;
Unfair competition is considered to be not only a formal violation of a legal norm but also behavior that does not correspond to commercial ethics and business customs;
Relations between entities in the use of intellectual property objects are default not considered anticompetitive agreements or an abuse of a dominant position (even if they formally possess such characteristics);
Unfair competition in which another's intellectual property has been used illegally must be distinguished from counterfeiting: these are different types of violations and different liabilities arise for them. However, in some cases, unfair competition may simultaneously qualify as counterfeiting;
The second part of Article 14.6 of the Competition Protection Law applies not only to registered intellectual property objects. It provides protection also for those means of individualization that are not officially registered (product appearance, its design method);
If the antimonopoly authority identifies signs of unfair competition involving intellectual property objects, it does not issue an order to the violator but immediately proceeds to initiate the case;
The violator is obliged to transfer to the budget all income derived as a result of unfair competition involving intellectual property;
An official guilty of such a violation may be disqualified;
If counterfeit products are involved in unfair competition, they are seized and destroyed;
In the administrative process, the violator will not be able to use some standard defense tools. Unfair competition is not an insignificant violation; therefore, the punishment cannot be replaced with a warning. The entity will be brought to liability even if such a violation was committed for the first time.

_______________________________

References

[1] Part 2 of Article 34 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

[2] Decision of the Ryazan OFAS of Russia dated November 29, 2024, regarding case No. 062/01/14.5-87/2024.

[3] Item 12 of the Review of Judicial Practice in Cases Related to the Assessment of Actions of Trademark Right Holders (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on November 15, 2023).

[4] Decision of the Khabarovsk OFAS of Russia dated September 5, 2024, regarding case No. 027/01/14.5-2024/2024.

[5] Item 2 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25 dated June 23, 2015, On the Application by Courts of Certain Provisions of Section I of Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

[6] Ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 26, 2019, No. 303-KG18-23327 regarding case No. A04-1665/2018.

[7] Resolution of the Khabarovsk OFAS of Russia dated October 3, 2024, No. 027/04/14.33-1338/2024.

[8] FAS Russia Letter No. AK/113856/20 dated December 24, 2020, On the Relationship Between Norms of Legislation on Unfair Competition with Norms of Legislation on Advertising and on Consumer Rights Protection.

[9] FAS Russia Letter No. PI/100065/23 dated November 28, 2023, On the Consideration of an Appeal.

[10] FAS Russia Letter No. AK/52348/21 dated June 25, 2021, On Issuing an Order when Rendering a Decision in a Case on a Violation of Article 14.4 of the Law On Protection of Competition (Item 10 of the Plan).

[11] Item 13 of the Review of Judicial Practice in Cases Related to the Assessment of Actions of Trademark Right Holders (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on November 15, 2023).

[12] Item 10 of the Review of Judicial Practice Issues Arising During the Consideration of Cases on Protection of Competition and Cases on Administrative Offenses in the Specified Sphere (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 16, 2016).

[13] Decision of FAS Russia dated November 20, 2024, regarding case No. 08/01/14.5-76/2024.

[14] Decision of the Tatarstan OFAS of Russia dated September 25, 2024, regarding case No. 016/01/14.5-774/2024.

[15] Decision of the Altai Territory OFAS of Russia dated October 26, 2018, No. 10-FAS22-NK/09-18 On Terminating Proceedings in a Case; Decision of the Tatarstan OFAS of Russia dated May 5, 2023, No. VCh-08/4583 regarding case No. 016/01/14.6-1092/2022.

[16] Decision of the Moscow Region OFAS of Russia dated July 16, 2024, regarding case No. 050/01/14.5-2412/2021.

[17] Item 75 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 dated April 23, 2019, On the Application of Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

[18] Item 14 of the Review of Judicial Practice in Cases Related to the Assessment of Actions of Trademark Right Holders (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on November 15, 2023).

[19] Decision of the Tatarstan OFAS of Russia dated August 25, 2023, No. VCh-08/8905 regarding case No. 016/01/14.6-1936/2022.

[20] Decision of the Tatarstan OFAS of Russia dated June 11, 2024, No. VCh-08/5746 regarding case No. 016/01/14.6-1719/2023; Decision of the Samara OFAS of Russia dated December 27, 2023, regarding case No. 063/01/14.6-238/2023.

[21] Decision of FAS Russia dated November 20, 2024, regarding case No. 08/01/14.5-74/2024; Decision of FAS Russia dated November 20, 2024, regarding case No. 08/01/14.5-76/2024; Decision of FAS Russia dated November 20, 2024, regarding case No. 08/01/14.5-67/2024.

[22] Item 13 of the Review of Judicial Practice Issues Arising During the Consideration of Cases on Protection of Competition and Cases on Administrative Offenses in the Specified Sphere (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 16, 2016).

[23] Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 7-P dated February 17, 2022, regarding the case on checking the constitutionality of Articles 14.8 and 51 of the Federal Law On Protection of Competition in connection with the complaint of Medexpert LLC.

[24] Item 27 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 30 dated June 30, 2008, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Arbitration Courts.

[25] Item 18 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 dated June 2, 2004, On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice During the Consideration of Cases on Administrative Offenses.