Intellectual property: trade marks, appellations of origin and patents

These are distinct IP regimes with different legal bases, scopes of protection and evidence. Misidentifying the protected object can distort both the claim and the defence. A trademark is a registered designation used to distinguish goods or services. Russian trademark protection is governed by Part IV of the Civil Code; registration, classes and the scope of exclusive rights must be checked against the specific registration. An appellation of origin is a different regime tied to a geographical name and qualities or characteristics attributable to that place. A commercial designation, in turn, may arise through use and is governed by separate Civil Code rules rather than trademark registration. In a dispute, the distinction affects the cause of action, jurisdiction, facts to be proved and available remedies. Registration documents, evidence of use, market context and the specific allegedly infringing use should therefore be reviewed separately for each right.

Litigation becomes relevant when use of a designation has a concrete effect on the business—for example, sales, distribution, imports or marketplace access. A similar sign does not by itself determine whether court action is warranted. Typical triggers include a demand from another rights holder, removal of goods from a marketplace, customs IP-register issues, disruption of supplier or distributor relationships, market confusion or suspected counterfeiting. The procedural route depends on the claim. Some disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Court, while compensation claims and other infringement disputes may proceed in Russian commercial courts. Challenges to Rospatent decisions have their own route. Criminal liability for unlawful trademark use is governed separately by Article 180 of the Russian Criminal Code . Civil limitation periods, interim measures, prior administrative proceedings and evidence of similarity must be assessed for the specific dispute rather than assumed from the label attached to it.

The contract and performance documents should be read together. The contract defines the agreed legal model; invoices, acceptance documents, payments and correspondence show how the relationship was actually performed. If those records tell different stories, the court may have to determine whether there was a breach, a later modification, waiver or another legal explanation for the divergence. For example, unsigned acceptance certificates, changes agreed in messaging applications, or recurring invoice prices that differ from the written contract may all affect the evidential analysis. The useful task is therefore not to choose one document over another, but to build a chronology showing what was agreed, what happened in practice and which documents support each disputed fact.

No. A pre-action demand is stronger when it states a coherent primary breach and the remedies that follow from it. Adding every conceivable claim can create internal contradictions and make the evidential basis harder to defend. The demand should identify the breach, quantify the direct consequences where possible, state the principal remedy and add only those ancillary claims that have a legal and evidential basis. Potentially incompatible remedies should not be combined without analysing their legal relationship. Contractual penalties, statutory interest and damages also need to be tested for compatibility rather than simply accumulated. Article 395 of the Russian Civil Code + full damages may not be cumulatively available; the legal relationship between each remedy must be checked. Lost-profit claims require evidence and calculation, and non-pecuniary damages are generally not a remedy for an ordinary commercial dispute between companies. A sound demand identifies the contractual provision and breach, states the principal claim with a calculation, adds properly supported ancillary claims, sets the performance period and attaches the documents on which each claim relies. It should be drafted with the likely litigation position in mind.