Block 1. Key Takeaways
- The dominance of Chinese sellers (up to 96% on certain platforms) in the segment of counterfeit children's toys on Russian marketplaces evidences a systemic failure of existing content-filtering mechanisms in the context of cross-border e-commerce.
- The legal regime governing cross-border trade, which permits the sale of goods without mandatory certification and labeling procedures, creates conditions for abuse of rights and de facto impunity of foreign infringers of exclusive rights.
- The procedural inefficiency of pre-trial enforcement mechanisms (notice-and-takedown) on major platforms is confirmed by the cyclical nature of infringements: removal of infringing listings does not prevent their prompt re-upload or the creation of affiliated ("clone") seller accounts.
- The introduction of mandatory labeling of toys as of June 1, 2025 does not extend to cross-border supplies, thereby neutralizing the anti-counterfeiting potential of this regulatory measure and placing bona fide domestic right holders at a disadvantage.
Block 2. Legal Analysis
In 2025, the number of Chinese sellers offering counterfeit toys increased sharply on the two largest Russian e-commerce platforms. Analysts indicate that Chinese entrepreneurs now constitute the primary suppliers of such goods: their share among all sellers of counterfeit toys reaches 96% on Ozon and 37% on Wildberries.
In the context of expanding digital distribution, the protection of exclusive rights to means of individualization in e-commerce is evolving from a private law dispute into an issue of systemic economic security. The presented analytical data on the exponential growth of foreign sellers offering goods with indicia of counterfeiting necessitates a doctrinal reassessment of the limits of liability of information aggregators.
Civil law qualification of infringement and exclusive rights framework
Pursuant to Article 1229 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — the "Civil Code"), the exclusive right to a trademark may be exercised at the discretion of the right holder. Any use of a designation identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark in relation to homogeneous goods without the right holder's consent constitutes infringement (Article 1484 of the Civil Code). The placement by third parties of product listings on online platforms incorporating such means of individualization, absent appropriate licensing agreements, falls within the scope of Article 1515 of the Civil Code and entails civil liability in the form of statutory compensation.
Liability of marketplaces as information intermediaries
At the same time, enforcement practice reveals significant challenges in qualifying the conduct of marketplace operators. Under Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code, an information intermediary (a category encompassing platform operators) may be exempt from liability if certain conditions are met, including lack of knowledge of unlawful content and prompt removal upon notification. However, both legal doctrine and the jurisprudence of the Intellectual Property Court indicate that a passive response to systematic infringements may be construed as bad faith and as insufficient to qualify for such exemption.
Cross-border loopholes and insufficiency of purely civil remedies
Particular importance attaches to the interaction between intellectual property law and technical regulation in the context of cross-border trade. The current legal framework permitting importation of goods for personal use without certification and labeling creates a regulatory gap exploited by bad-faith actors. The failure of foreign sellers engaged in remote sales to comply with mandatory labeling requirements introduced on June 1, 2025 effectively removes a substantial volume of counterfeit goods from state oversight, undermining the objective of ensuring traceability of goods circulation.
Accordingly, purely civil law remedies are insufficient to effectively combat infringements in the digital environment. There is a need for coordinated application of civil, administrative, and customs law to develop effective mechanisms for identifying cross-border traders and imposing preventive obligations on platform operators to verify intellectual property rights.
Block 3. Commentary by Patent Attorney A.V. Leonov
Practical imperatives for protecting business in conditions of digital anonymity
The current situation necessitates a shift from a reactive enforcement model (responding to isolated infringements) to a proactive risk-management strategy. In practice, isolated complaints to marketplace support services have limited persuasive effect and do not ensure irreversible cessation of infringement.
Key risks for right holders
- Brand dilution and reputational harm: The poor quality of counterfeit goods marketed under a brand inflicts irreparable damage to business reputation.
- Financial losses: Direct substitution of legitimate products by cheaper counterfeit goods that avoid costs associated with taxation, certification, and licensing.
- Procedural complexity: Difficulties in properly notifying foreign infringers and enforcing judgments outside the Russian jurisdiction.
Recommended course of action
- Evidence preservation: Conduct notarial inspection of websites (Article 102 of the Fundamentals of Notarial Legislation), documenting not only the sale but also the recurrence of listings after removal, thereby evidencing systematic infringement.
- Combined enforcement strategy: In addition to trademark infringement claims (Article 1515 of the Civil Code), initiate administrative proceedings for unfair competition (Article 14.2 of the Competition Law) before the Federal Antimonopoly Service.
- Engagement with platforms: Submit consolidated infringement registers to marketplaces, accompanied by title documents and expert opinions on likelihood of confusion, emphasizing that repeated re-posting evidences insufficiency of platform measures (Article 1253.1(2) of the Civil Code).
- Customs measures: Record intellectual property objects in the Customs Register of Intellectual Property Objects (TROIS) to enable suspension of release of infringing goods at the border.
Outlook: In the short term, a high level of risk is expected to persist. However, tightening regulation of marketplaces and the development of cross-border enforcement cooperation mechanisms may improve the situation in the medium term.
Related Materials
Further IPPRO analysis on marketplace liability, cross-border enforcement, and trademark protection strategy: