Unfair Competition in Russia: Legal Protection and Remedies

 

March 5, 2022

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

The diversity of forms of violations falling under the concept of unfair competition, and furthermore, the open-ended list of such forms, implies a variety of forms of protection in the fight against unfair competition. On the territory of Russia, the performance of activities through actions that fall under the concept of unfair competition is prohibited.

Unfair competition is defined as "any actions of economic entities (groups of persons) aimed at obtaining advantages in conducting business activities, contradicting the legislation of the Russian Federation, business customs, requirements of integrity, reasonableness, and fairness, and which have caused or may cause losses to other economic entities — competitors — or have caused or may cause harm to their business reputation".

Legal relations in this part are regulated by Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated July 26, 2006, On Protection of Competition (the "Law No. 135-FZ", the "Law on Protection of Competition", the "Competition Law").

To qualify the behavior of an economic entity as impermissible (unfair) competition, the primary factor is not the compliance with (or violation of) civil or industry legislation as such, but other circumstances:

• Whether its behavior constitutes an act of competition, i.e., whether it affects the rights and legitimate interests of other economic entities participating in the market and consumers;
• Whether it is aimed at obtaining advantages in conducting business activities not through its own economic resources, but at the expense of other market participants—by causing them actual or potential losses or diminishing their business reputation;
• Whether the method chosen by the economic entity to obtain advantages is compatible with honest business and meets the requirements of legislation and (or) customs established in commercial turnover, as well as representations of integrity, reasonableness, and fairness. [1]

Any act of competition contrary to honest customs in industrial and commercial matters is considered an act of unfair competition. In particular, the following shall be prohibited:

• All actions capable of causing confusion by any means regarding the enterprise, products, or industrial or commercial activities of a competitor;
• False allegations in the course of commercial activity capable of discrediting the enterprise, products, or industrial or commercial activities of a competitor;
• Indications or allegations, the use of which in the course of commercial activity may mislead the public as to the nature, manufacturing process, characteristics, suitability for use, or quantity of goods. [2]

In this regard, taking into account the types of unfair competition provided for by Law No. 135-FZ, all signs of unfair competition provided for by Clause 9 of Article 4 of the Law on Protection of Competition must be established in conjunction with the specific signs of the corresponding violation (Chapter 2.1 of the Competition Law). [3]

Types of Unfair Competition

1. Violation of competition in the form of discrediting (Article 14.1 of the Competition Law).

Discrediting represents the dissemination of false, inaccurate, or distorted information that may cause losses to an economic entity and (or) harm its business reputation, including information regarding:

• The quality and consumer properties of a product, or other consumer properties;
• The quantity of a product offered for sale by another competing economic entity, or the conditions determining its demand;
• The conditions under which a product is offered for sale by another competing economic entity, particularly the price of the product.

Discrediting aims to undermine the trust of the clientele (consumers or other counterparties) in a competitor or its products and to attract consumers to one's own products by disseminating improper information, which includes incomplete information about the competitor, its goods, and services.

One should keep in mind that not every dissemination of information that does not correspond to reality and discredits another economic entity can be recognized as an act of unfair competition, but only such information that is directly capable of influencing competition — that is, directly providing the person who disseminated the information with advantages over competitors and causing them harm.

Three signs of this form of unfair competition can be distinguished:

• Dissemination of information;
• Its unreliability (falsity, inaccuracy, distortion);
• Causing harm (damage to business reputation).

Dissemination of information means any actions as a result of which the information became known to third parties (at least one). The form of information dissemination in this case does not matter — it could be a public speech, the publication of an interview in the media, the sending of business letters, or other actions.

Falsity means a complete mismatch between the information and the actual state of affairs; distortion is the interpretation by an economic entity of information about an existing or occurred fact, action, or event relative to an economic entity (competitor) in a form that leads to its incorrect, negative perception by third parties, including consumers. Inaccuracy is the dissemination by an economic entity of information about a competing economic entity in an incomplete volume, which does not allow for a comprehensive perception or an exhaustively correct understanding of the stated fact, action, or event relative to the given economic entity.

The dissemination of information that reduces the level of trust in an economic entity but is true does not fall under this form of unfair competition.

Harm may be expressed in losses or damage to business reputation. [4] When establishing the fact of discrediting, it is necessary that the disseminated information does not correspond to reality and that the parties are competitors. For example, in one case, a court overturned a warning from the Antimonopoly Authority to stop disseminating information because it established that the information about the filing of a bankruptcy petition against the person was true, and furthermore, the parties were not competitors as they sold different goods. [5]

2. Unfair competition in the form of misleading. Misleading may concern the following circumstances:

• The quality and consumer properties of the product offered for sale, its purpose, or other properties;
• The quantity of the product offered for sale, its availability on the market, the possibility of its acquisition under certain conditions, or the actual size of the demand for such product;
• The place of manufacture of the product offered for sale, its manufacturer, or the warranty obligations of the seller or manufacturer;
• The conditions under which the product is offered for sale, particularly the price of such product.

The Law on Protection of Competition prohibits unfair competition through misleading; it is prohibited to mislead any persons (consumers, counterparties, competitors). Misleading results from the dissemination of positive information (rather than negative information as in discrediting), and its content concerns the activities of the disseminator itself and (or) its product. However, in both cases, the disseminated information must not correspond to reality for the actions to be recognized as an act of unfair competition. [6]

When distinguishing between the compositions provided for by Articles 14.1 and 14.2 of the Competition Law, it should be noted that Article 14.1 of the Law on Protection of Competition covers the dissemination of unreliable (false, inaccurate, or distorted) information by an economic entity regarding competitors, whereas Article 14.2 of the Law on Protection of Competition covers information regarding its own activities and (or) its own goods (works, services). [7]

3. Unfair competition through incorrect comparison is not permitted (Article 14.3 of the Competition Law).

Unfair competition through incorrect comparison of an economic entity and (or) its product with another competing economic entity and (or) its product is prohibited, including:

• Comparison with another competing economic entity and (or) its product using words such as "best", "first", "number one", "most", "only", "sole", etc.;
• Comparison with another competing economic entity and (or) its product where specific compared characteristics or parameters are not indicated, or the results of the comparison cannot be objectively verified;
• Comparison with another competing economic entity and (or) its product based solely on insignificant or incomparable facts and containing a negative assessment of the activities of the competing economic entity and (or) its product.

The first type of incorrect comparison relates to an unlimited circle of competing economic entities and (or) their goods.

The second type applies to incorrect comparison with a specific competing economic entity (product). Incorrect comparison, like any other, can be of two types: negative and positive. In a negative comparison, an economic entity seeks to diminish the competitor's goods while praising its own. A positive comparison, conversely, does not weaken the reputation of the competitor's product but uses it.

The third type of incorrect comparison assumes that the comparison must be constructed using incorrect logical operations such that its reliability cannot be objectively confirmed or refuted. [8]

4. Prohibition of unfair competition related to the acquisition and use of the exclusive right to means of individualization of a legal entity, or means of individualization of goods, works, or services.

Only actions of economic entities (groups of persons) that acquire and use the exclusive right to means of individualization of a legal entity or means of individualization of products, works, or services may be recognized as an act of unfair competition related to the acquisition and use of such exclusive rights.

When examining the issue of acquiring exclusive rights to a trademark, both the circumstances related to the acquisition of the exclusive right itself and the subsequent behavior of the right holder characterizing the purposes of such acquisition are subject to investigation. In this case, the bad faith of the right holder must be established primarily at the stage of filing the application for registration of the designation as a trademark.

Furthermore, for recognition of actions for trademark registration as an act of unfair competition, the mere fact of registering such a trademark is sufficient, since the registration itself already creates a threat of termination of activities using the same designation that began to be used long before the defendant acquired the exclusive right to the corresponding means of product individualization. [9]

5. Prohibition of unfair competition related to the use of results of intellectual activity. Unfair competition through an economic entity's actions of selling, exchanging, or otherwise releasing a product into circulation is not permitted if results of intellectual activity were used illegally, with the exception of means of individualization belonging to a competing economic entity.

In accordance with Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property dated March 20, 1883, any act of competition contrary to honest customs in industrial and commercial matters is considered an act of unfair competition. In particular, the following shall be prohibited: all actions capable of causing confusion regarding the enterprise, products, or activities of a competitor; false allegations capable of discrediting a competitor; and indications or allegations that may mislead the public as to the nature, manufacturing process, properties, suitability for use, or quantity of goods.

To recognize the actions of a right holder in acquiring and using the exclusive right to a means of individualization (including a brand name) as an act of unfair competition, the following circumstances must be established:

• The fact of use of this name by other persons prior to the date of registration of the legal entity and the start of activities under this brand name;
• The right holder's awareness of the fact of use of such a name by other persons prior to the date of registration of the legal entity and the start of activities under this brand name;
• The existence of competitive relations between the right holder and other economic entities at the time of registration of the legal entity and the start of activities under this brand name;
• The defendant's intention (purpose) through the acquisition of the exclusive right to such a brand name (acquiring a monopoly over it) to obtain unjustified advantages by using a well-known designation and to cause harm to competing economic entities.

The legal norms cited above determine the undesirability of the appearance in civil circulation of means of individualization that cause consumers to have unjustified perceptions of an associative link between different manufacturers of goods and services. [10]

6. Prohibition of unfair competition related to the creation of confusion. Unfair competition is not permitted through actions (omissions) by an economic entity capable of causing confusion with the activities of a competing economic entity or with goods or services released into civil circulation by a competing economic entity on the territory of the Russian Federation, including:

• Illegal use of a designation identical to a trademark or another means of individualization;
• Copying or imitating the appearance of a product released into civil circulation by a competing economic entity, its packaging, label, name, color scheme, brand style as a whole (the combination of corporate clothing, sales area design, display window) or other elements individualizing the competing economic entity and (or) its product.

7. Prohibition of unfair competition related to the illegal receipt, use, and disclosure of information constituting a trade secret or other secret protected by law.

Receipt of information should be understood as the opportunity to become acquainted with information constituting a law-protected secret of a competing economic entity, and use should be understood as the application of said information for the purpose of obtaining advantages in conducting business activities.

The information in question must be obtained from a person who does not have the right to dispose of it. Such a person may be a counterparty of the information owner who obtained the information on a legal basis but lacks the right to transfer the information to third parties. For example, a person transfers confidential information to a third party in violation of contractual obligations. Such a transfer must provide the economic entity with advantages in business activities and be capable of causing losses to its competitors. [11]

8. Other forms of unfair competition. When qualifying the actions of a specific person as an act of unfair competition based on Article 14.8 of the Competition Law, the general signs of unfair competition defined by Clause 9 of Article 4 of the Competition Law and Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property are assessed.

The nature of violations that can be qualified under Article 14.8 of the Competition Law is quite diverse and, in any case, covers such violations in the field of restricting or eliminating competition that are not named in special norms.

For instance, in a specific case, a court recognized the lawfulness of a decision by the Antimonopoly Authority to apply Article 14.8 of the Competition Law against an apartment building management company. The court established that the actions of management organizations in illegally collecting fees for repair and maintenance of intercom equipment from apartment owners who have direct contracts for such services are capable of causing losses to "intercom" organizations and depriving them of the opportunity to perform maintenance. These actions are aimed at obtaining advantages in conducting business activities and indicate signs of a violation of Article 14.8 of the Competition Law. [12]

Methods of Protection Against Unfair Competition

In the Russian Federation, a national standard exists for regulating antimonopoly responses to violations of competition requirements and the commission of acts of unfair competition. [13] This standard describes in detail the nature of the protected legal relations and the principles of antimonopoly regulation and protection.

The main methods of administrative protection are:

1. Review of complaints by the Antimonopoly Authority regarding actions qualified as an act of unfair competition.

Violations in the sphere of unfair competition are grounds for initiating a case on the violation of antimonopoly legislation, as well as a case on an administrative offense. As a general rule, the review of cases on violations of antimonopoly legislation is carried out by the Antimonopoly Authority in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Law on Protection of Competition. Another review procedure may be expressly provided for by law.

According to Part 2 of Article 39.1 of the Competition Law, before initiating a case based on signs of Articles 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.7, and 14.8 of the Competition Law, a warning must be issued. [14] The purposes of issuing a warning are:

• Suppression of actions (omissions) that lead or may lead to the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition and (or) the infringement of the interests of other persons (economic entities) in the sphere of business activity or the infringement of the interests of an indefinite circle of consumers;
• Elimination of the causes and conditions that contributed to the occurrence of such a violation and the adoption of measures to eliminate the consequences of such a violation.

When deciding on the necessity of issuing a warning, it should be kept in mind that a warning to eliminate signs of a violation of antimonopoly legislation cannot be issued if the actions (omissions) containing signs of a violation have ceased by the time the decision to issue the warning is made. A case also cannot be initiated before the expiration of the period established in the warning.

In accordance with Part 4 of Article 39.1 of Law No. 135-FZ, a warning must contain: conclusions on the existence of grounds for its issuance; norms of antimonopoly legislation violated by the actions (omissions) of the person to whom the warning is issued; a list of actions aimed at terminating the violation, eliminating the causes and conditions that contributed to it, and eliminating its consequences, as well as a reasonable period for their execution.

According to these provisions of Law No. 135-FZ, a warning serves as an effective tool for preliminary, timely, and objective impact on a suspected violator of antimonopoly legislation, allowing the recipient to avoid prolonged and costly antimonopoly prosecution while achieving the goals of antimonopoly control. Through a warning, further negative impact on the significant competitive environment is promptly excluded (suppressed).

Since a warning is issued upon the discovery of only the signs of an offense, rather than the fact of it, the court verifies the existence of such signs based on the information and documents received by the Antimonopoly Authority. The court does not establish the circumstances confirming the fact of a violation of antimonopoly legislation.

According to Clause 3 of the Review of Judicial Practice Issues Arising During the Consideration of Cases on Protection of Competition and Cases on Administrative Offenses in Said Sphere, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 16, 2016, a warning from the Antimonopoly Authority may be an independent subject of appeal in an Arbitration Court. However, judicial control during the appeal of a warning must be limited by the specifics of issuing such an act, the goals achieved by it, the proportionality of the prescribed measures, and their feasibility.

When reviewing a case, not only persons active in the commodity market but also persons not currently active in the commodity market but having the potential to enter the market may be recognized as having committed an act of unfair competition. [15]

Specifically, the decision states that any economic entity whose actions imply an intention to use the intellectual property of another economic entity (right holder) without its consent for the purpose of obtaining competitive advantages may be regarded as a competing economic entity.

Based on the results of the complaint review, a decision and an order to eliminate the committed violation may be issued.

2. Filing objections against the registration of a means of individualization with Rospatent.

By virtue of Part 1 of Article 14.4 of the Competition Law, unfair competition related to the acquisition and use of the exclusive right to means of individualization is prohibited. Based on Part 2 of Article 14.4 of the Competition Law, an interested person (i.e., a person whose rights are violated by an act of unfair competition) may file an objection against the granting of legal protection to a trademark on the grounds that the actions of the right holder related to the granting of legal protection to this trademark or another trademark confusingly similar to it have been recognized as unfair competition.

Upon receiving the corresponding objection with the attached court or Antimonopoly Authority decision, Rospatent shall invalidate the granting of legal protection to the trademark. A Rospatent decision to invalidate legal protection cannot be declared invalid for the reason of absence of violations of antimonopoly legislation until the court or Antimonopoly Authority decision is challenged and overturned. This does not exclude the possibility of combining claims to challenge the decisions of the Antimonopoly Authority and Rospatent for joint consideration.

The qualification of a right holder's actions in acquiring the exclusive right to a trademark through state registration as an act of unfair competition depends on the purpose pursued by the person and the intentions of that person at the time of filing the application. These may be established taking into account the behavior of the right holder prior to and following the acquisition of the right. If a person files an application for state registration as a trademark of a designation used by other persons, the evaluation shall include, among other things, the prominence and reputation of the designation and the probability that such a coincidence was accidental. [16]

Furthermore, an interested person has the right to challenge a Rospatent decision on the registration of a means of individualization. When considering a case challenging a Rospatent decision, the court, based on the provisions of Article 10 of the Civil Code and Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention, is entitled to recognize the actions of a person in registering a trademark as an abuse of right or unfair competition and decide to invalidate the Rospatent decision and order it to cancel the trademark registration.

Recognition of a person's actions in registering a trademark as an abuse of right or unfair competition is carried out based on the objection filed with Rospatent.

Furthermore, the submission of unreliable documents to Rospatent when filing a trademark registration application may serve as evidence of bad faith.

Judicial Protection Against Unfair Competition

The challenging of acts issued by antimonopoly authorities is carried out in an Arbitration Court at the location of the corresponding antimonopoly authority in accordance with the procedure of Chapter 24 of the APC RF.

The following acts of antimonopoly authorities may be challenged:

• A decision of the Antimonopoly Authority;
• An order of the Antimonopoly Authority;
• A decision of a collegial body adopted on a complaint may be an independent subject of appeal on the merits if it constitutes a new decision. A collegial body's decision may also be challenged separately due to a violation of the adoption procedure or the body exceeding its powers;
• An order of the Antimonopoly Authority to appoint an inspection or to initiate a case is not an act resolving the issue of whether a violation exists. Consequently, the Arbitration Court should only verify the grounds excluding the legal possibility of their issuance (e.g., the subject of the inspection exceeding powers, violation of inspection frequency, or lack of grounds for an unscheduled inspection);
• A decision of the Antimonopoly Authority to refuse to initiate a case may be challenged in an Arbitration Court by the persons who acted as applicants.

Judicial Claims Initiated by the Antimonopoly Authority

The Antimonopoly Authority is entitled to file claims (applications) regarding violations of antimonopoly legislation in an Arbitration Court. When filing claims for the invalidation of contracts, the mandatory conclusion of a contract, or the invalidation of tenders, the Antimonopoly Authority must justify the existence of a public interest in the protection of competition.

For example, when evaluating a claim to invalidate a transaction due to a violation of restrictions on acquiring additional retail space, the court may consider actions taken by the economic entity to ensure competition by other means, such as the independent termination of previously concluded contracts.

The aforementioned claims are considered by arbitration courts under the procedure of claim proceedings (Article 12 of the Civil Code).

The Antimonopoly Authority may also file a claim to compel a person to execute measures specified in a previously issued order. [17]

Persons whose rights are violated as a result of non-compliance with antimonopoly legislation by other participants in civil circulation are entitled to independently file a claim in the appropriate court for the restoration of violated rights, including claims to compel the conclusion of a contract, to invalidate a contract, to recognize actions as violating antimonopoly legislation, and for the recovery of losses.

Furthermore, by virtue of Article 43.4 of Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated April 28, 1995, On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation, the Intellectual Property Court hears the following cases in the first instance:

• Disputes concerning the granting or termination of legal protection of results of intellectual activity and means of individualization (excluding copyright and related rights, and topologies of integrated circuits);
• Challenging non-normative legal acts and decisions of the federal executive body for intellectual property;
• Challenging a decision of the federal antimonopoly authority recognizing actions related to the acquisition of the exclusive right to means of individualization as unfair competition.

Challenging Rospatent Decisions

Furthermore, an interested person has the right to challenge a Rospatent decision on the registration of a means of individualization. Recognition of a person's actions in registering a trademark as an abuse of right or unfair competition is carried out based on the objection filed with Rospatent.

As explained in Clause 171 of the 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, if a claim to recognize a person's actions in registering a trademark as an act of unfair competition is filed as an independent claim, such a claim must be separated into a separate proceeding. [18]

In such a case, the review of the separated claim is not limited to the circumstances of the objection filed with Rospatent. The court in such a case proposes to replace the defendant.

To recognize actions for acquiring the exclusive right to a means of individualization as an act of unfair competition, the purpose of committing the actions must first be established. The necessity of considering the purpose of actions when analyzing the integrity of behavior is highlighted in Clause 17 of Resolution No. 11. [19]

One circumstance that may indicate bad faith is that the person knew or should have known that other persons (competitors) were legally using the corresponding designation for individualization without registration as a trademark at the time of filing the application, as well as the fact that such a designation had acquired prominence among consumers.

However, establishing the right holder's awareness of the use of a confusingly similar designation by others prior to the priority date is not sufficient on its own to conclude that the person acted in bad faith. It must also be established that the person had a dishonest purpose.

Bad faith must be established primarily at the stage of filing the application, since it is at this moment that the intent to compete unfairly is realized. Subsequent behavior may only confirm or refute the fact that the right holder acted in bad faith during the acquisition. [20]

Furthermore, the submission of unreliable documents to Rospatent when filing a trademark registration application may serve as evidence of bad faith.

Criminal Liability for Unfair Competition

Several elements of crime can be identified for violations in the sphere of unfair competition.

1. Illegal use of means of individualization of goods (works, services) (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The illegal use of another's trademark, service mark, or appellation of origin of goods is a crime under Article 180 of the Criminal Code.

Illegal use means the application of a trademark or confusingly similar designation without the permission of the right holder:

• On goods, labels, or packaging produced, offered for sale, sold, or otherwise released into civil circulation in Russia;
• During the performance of works or provision of services;
• On documentation related to the release of goods into circulation;
• On the Internet, specifically in a domain name. [21]

The maximum penalty for a qualified crime under this article is 6 years.

2. Illegal receipt and disclosure of information constituting a trade, tax, or bank secret (Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

This includes the collection of such information through theft, deception, blackmail, or threats, as well as illegal disclosure or use of information without the owner's consent by a person to whom it was entrusted or became known through service or work.

Administrative Liability for Unfair Competition

Administrative liability is provided for by Article 14.33 of the CAO RF for unfair competition if such actions do not contain the elements of a criminal offense.

Article 14.33 contains two parts. The first part provides for liability for unfair competition if the actions do not contain a criminally punishable act or a violation in the sphere of advertising. The maximum fine for legal entities is up to 500,000 rubles. Liability for violations of advertising legislation is provided for by Article 14.3 of the CAO RF.

When distinguishing between these articles, if false or distorted information or incorrect comparisons are contained in advertising, then administrative liability established by Article 14.3 of the CAO RF applies rather than Article 14.33. [22]

Any actions that may result in the restriction of competition or distortion of information about a competitor lead to the application of Article 14.33. For example, in one case, a company was held liable for disseminating negative information about a competitor, which resulted in increased sales for the violator. [23]

The second part provides for liability for releasing a product into circulation with the illegal use of results of intellectual activity and means of individualization. The maximum penalty is the disqualification of an official and a fine of up to 0.15 of the revenue from the market where the violation occurred.

The qualification of actions under Part 2 of Article 14.33 depends on the purpose of such actions, such as their orientation toward obtaining business advantages.

Only the person who first released the product into circulation with the illegal use of IP results can be the subject of liability under this part.

In conclusion, the fight against unfair competition should be aimed primarily at minimizing the losses of the person against whom the violation was committed and preventing repeated violations. Expert and prompt legal defense depends largely on the timely detection of violations and the constant monitoring of information regarding the violation of rights.

____________________________

References

1. Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 303-KG18-23327 dated April 26, 2019.
2. Article 10 bis of the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (concluded in Paris on March 20, 1883).
3. Review of the practice of applying antimonopoly legislation by collegial bodies of FAS Russia (for the period from January 5, 2016, to July 1, 2018) (approved by the Protocol of the Presidium of FAS Russia No. 10 dated October 3, 2018).
4. Letter of FAS Russia No. IA/74666/15 dated December 24, 2015, On the Application of the "Fourth Antimonopoly Package".
5. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District No. F04-5195/2020 dated December 2, 2020, in case No. A75-2429/2020.
6. Clause 9.2 of the Letter of FAS Russia No. IA/74666/15 dated December 24, 2015, On the Application of the "Fourth Antimonopoly Package".
7. Clause 31 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 2 dated March 4, 2021, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Courts.
8. Clause 9.3 of the Letter of FAS Russia No. IA/74666/15 dated December 24, 2015, On the Application of the "Fourth Antimonopoly Package".
9. Decision of the Intellectual Property Court dated December 29, 2021, in case No. SIP-1143/2021.
10. Resolution of the Presidium of the Intellectual Property Court dated July 16, 2018, in case No. SIP-313/2017.
11. Resolution of the Third Arbitration Appeal Court dated July 4, 2019, in case No. A33-79/2019.
12. Resolution of the Nineteenth Arbitration Appeal Court No. 19AP-5926/2020 dated April 29, 2021, in case No. A14-13143/2019.
13. GOST R 58223-2018 National Standard of the Russian Federation. Intellectual Property. Antimonopoly Regulation and Protection Against Unfair Competition.
14. Letter of FAS Russia No. IA/74666/15 dated December 24, 2015, On the Application of the "Fourth Antimonopoly Package".
15. Decision of the Appeal Board of FAS Russia dated October 26, 2017, on a complaint against the decision in case No. 06-01-13-14-16.
16. Clause 169 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 10 dated April 23, 2019, On the Application of Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
17. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District No. F10-3407/2021 dated September 1, 2021, in case No. A14-13143/2019.
18. Determination of the Intellectual Property Court dated October 25, 2021, in case No. SIP-1081/2021.
19. 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 the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.
20. Decision of the Intellectual Property Court dated December 29, 2021, in case No. SIP-1143/2021.
21. Clause 18 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 14 dated April 26, 2007, On the Practice of Consideration by Courts of Criminal Cases on Violation of Copyright, Related, Inventive, and Patent Rights, as well as the Illegal Use of a Trademark.
22. Clause 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the SAC RF No. 58 dated October 8, 2012, On Certain Issues of the Practice of Application by Arbitration Courts of the Federal Law dated March 13, 2006 No. 38-FZ On Advertising.
23. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District No. F02-7776/2016 dated January 24, 2017, in case No. A58-3155/2016.