On June 30, 2026, the ICC Russia conference “The Brand Under Attack: Legal Protection in the Digital Environment and Its Limits” was held in Moscow.
The event brought together leading lawyers, business representatives, and executives from online platforms to discuss the most pressing intellectual property issues in the digital economy.
A distinctive feature of the conference was its legal debate format, which allowed participants to examine controversial situations from different perspectives and demonstrate the multifaceted nature of judicial practice.
One of the key discussion panels focused on the topic “Copying the Appearance of a Competitor’s Product: Where Is the Line Between Inspiration and Unfair Competition?”, featuring a presentation by Elena Polevaya, Senior Associate at KKMP.
In a mock dispute, the participants analyzed two issues reflecting the key challenges in disputes over the copying or imitation of a product’s appearance (Part 2 of Article 14.6 of the Law on Competition Protection):
- Similarity to the Point of Confusion: Why Does First Impression Often Decide Everything?
In practice, it is not individual elements that are evaluated, but rather the overall impression of the average consumer: minor differences in shape and color are not decisive if the color scheme, composition, and dominant elements are the same. In this context, the mere threat of confusion is sufficient, and the fact that the defendant has its own trademark does not preclude infringement.
The elements to be proven in cases involving confusion include:
- the existence of a competitive relationship between the rights holder and the infringer, as well as other general signs of unfair competition;
- the distinctiveness of the unlawfully used trademarks or packaging designs—for confusion to occur, it is important that the imitated or copied element be widely known to consumers.
Evidence that may be used includes: opinion polls, online reviews regarding product similarities, consumer complaints about a competitor’s product that buyers mistakenly send to the applicant, correspondence with consumers, images of product displays, sales receipts, expert opinions, contracts, confirmation of sales volumes and business promotion costs, etc.
- Design Traditions: Where Does the Industry Standard End and Imitation Begin?
The colors and elements traditional to a product category are not exclusive to any single brand. For example, everyone is familiar with the blue-and-white cans of condensed milk, men’s cosmetics in dark tones, and so on. However, the specific composition, the arrangement of individual elements, and the font—all of these elements distinguish a product from a particular manufacturer. The following factors also help define the line between legitimate use and infringement: the priority of a product’s entry into the market, prior contractual relationships between the parties, the geographic scope of distribution, and pricing policy. A bona fide manufacturer, faced with a multitude of design options, strives to stand out; choosing a design that is as similar as possible to a competitor’s well-known product constitutes imitation of the competitor’s product’s appearance with the aim of creating the impression among buyers that such products belong to the line of imitated goods. Such actions contain all the qualifying elements of an act of unfair competition.
Recent case law examples in this category of cases:
- Decision of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia dated February 10, 2025, in Case No. 024/01/14.6-2479/2024, regarding the copying and imitation of the label design for condensed milk bearing the word mark “Karlamanskoe.”
- Decision of the Sverdlovsk Regional Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia dated February 13, 2026, in Case No. 066/01/14. 6-1359/2025 regarding the placing on the market of the product “VITA UDIN 15-in-1 Hair Cream Spray” with a label imitating that of the product “OLLIN 15-in-1 Hair Cream Spray.”
For more details about the event, follow the link.
