О параллельном импорте в Россию

В начале этого года произошел существенный поворот в судебной практике в России по делам об административных правонарушениях в связи с параллельным импортом, т.е. импорте неофициальными дистрибьюторами, не заключившими дистрибьюторских договоров с производителем товаров. Ранее параллельные импортеры могли быть привлечены к административной ответственности по ст. 14.10 КоАП за нарушение прав производителя товара (или иного правообладателя) на товарный знак, размещенный на товаре. Административная ответственность по этой статье предполагает конфискацию товара. Данная практика основана на том, что импорт товара с размещенным на нем товарным знаком является самостоятельным способом использования товарного знака, требующим лицензии от правообладателя.

Импорт при отсутствии такого разрешения рассматривался не только как гражданское правонарушение, но и как административное правонарушение, подпадающее под ст. 14.10 КоАП. Однако ВАС РФ постановил, что параллельный импорт не является административным правонарушением. Проблема более подробно рассматривается в заметке ниже, написанной на английском языке ввиду важности вопроса не только для российских юридических лиц, но и для иностранных торговых партнеров.

Parallel Import Issue: Recent Turn of Russian Court Practice

Parallel or grey import, i.e. import of original goods without permission of the

manufacturer bypassing the official distributorship network is quite widespread in Russia

especially with regards cars, household devices and mobile phones. At the same time from legal

perspective parallel import remains a questionable practice: under Russian laws import is a type

of use of trademarks placed on the imported goods. From this follows that import may be

effected only by the trademark owner or with his or her permission. Otherwise the import

constitutes a trademark infringement; and from this perspective parallel import is close to such

infringement as counterfeit.

Generally, liability for trademark infringement is determined by the Criminal Code, by the

Code on Administrative Offences and by the Civil Code. In case of infringement the trademark

owner may always exercise civil law remedies against the persons or entities engaged in parallel

import. In addition, until recently these persons or entities were often stopped with the help of

art. 14.10 of the Code on Administrative Offences. This article imposes administrative sanctions

for trademark infringement which include monetary penalty and confiscation of the goods

involved.

On 03.02.2009 the Russian Supreme Arbitration Court adopted Resolution #10458/08

which can significantly change the judicial practice on administrative offences in the field of

parallel import.

As said above, earlier Russian courts usually uphold the manufacturers who claimed, first,

a penalty to be imposed on parallel importers and, secondly, confiscation of imported goods

under art. 14.10 of the Code on Administrative Offences. That practice was in line with

understanding that (parallel) import of original goods without permission of the trademark

owner, being infringement of a right to a trademark, constitutes an administrative offence within

art. 14.10 of the Code on Administrative Offences.

The recent Genesis case has become a certain turning point. In that case Russian Central

Customs started administrative proceedings in the Moscow Arbitration Court against the

company Genesis because that company imported Porsche Cayenne S car into Russia without

permission of the trademark owner, Porsche AG.

On 28.03.2008 the Moscow Arbitration Court uphold the Central Customs’ claim, imposed

administrative monetary penalty on Genesis and confiscated the car on the ground of section

14.10 of the Code on Administrative Offences.

Genesis appealed but unsuccessfully. Genesis then went further and filed an application to

the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation asking to transfer the case to the

Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court for a review.

In Ruling # 10458/08 dated 31.10.2008 on transfer of the case to the Presidium for a review

it was noted that the courts of the first and of the appeal instance incorrectly interpreted and

applied the law. It was pointed out that not every infringement of a right to a trademark shall be

regarded as an administrative offence for the purpose of art 14.10 of the Code on Administrative

Offences; administrative sanctions shall be imposed only in case the infringement can damage

public interest. Such damage is evident, for example, in a situation of import of counterfeit

goods. However, in Genesis case the car was not counterfeit; commercial interests of the

manufacturer, not the public interest, were infringed by the import of the original Porsche car.

Hence, only civil law remedies against Genesis (or any other parallel importer) shall be available

to the trademark owner.

The case was transferred to the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court for a review.

By Resolution #10458/08 dated 03.02.2009 the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration

Court confirmed that administrative proceedings may not be started against a person or entity

engaged in import of original goods even if no permission (in respect of the trademarks placed

on the goods) for such import was received from the trademark owner.

The court quoted art. 14.10 of the Code on Administrative Offences which talked about

confiscation not of any involved goods but only of the goods which were unlawfully marked

with a trademark. From this follows that confiscation (and sanctions under art 14.10 generally)

cannot be imposed in case original, not counterfeit, goods (which bear the trademark placed by

the manufacturer itself) are imported into Russia.

This Resolution was followed by the Supreme Arbitration Court in another Resolution #

15166/08 dated 13.02.2009 in the case of parallel import of ECCO products.

It is undoubted that we now witness a certain new development of the court practice which

is at odds with the earlier approach.

The approach which was dominant before the Genesis case is still reflected in a draft

Decree (which plays the role of recommendations for subordinate courts) dedicated to various

issues of application of part 4 of the Civil Code of Russia on IP rights. The contents of this

Decree are still discussed by the judges of two supreme Russian courts: the Supreme Court and

the Supreme Arbitration Court; the official issue of the document is expected in the near future.

Section 63 of the draft Decree basically bans the parallel import without taking account of the

subtle distinction between administrative offence and civil offence. But in light of the mentioned

resolutions of the Supreme Arbitration Court in Genesis and ECCO cases the wording or even

survival of Section 63 in the final version of the Decree is far from being evident.

Right now it is not clear to what extent and in exactly what direction the above court

resolutions will change the Russian court practice in overall terms. It seems that discussions are

now starting in the political sphere. But anyway the outlined development shall be taken into

account by any lawyer who deals with parallel import issues in Russia.

Baltic Law Offices

Vladimir Slyshchenkov & Anton Levin

Moscow, Russia

March 25, 2009