from 01.01.2022 to 01.01.2025
Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
UDC 342.9
Introduction. In the context of the crisis in the modern economy, issues relating to the protection of intellectual property rights are becoming particularly important. Means of individualising goods play an important role in trade, and the issues relating to their administrative and legal protection require scientific study. This article addresses the problem of law enforcement practice in administrative cases involving the illegal use of means of individualising goods. Methods. Research methods include the dialectical method of cognition as a fundamental method of scientific analysis of socio-legal reality, as well as general scientific research methods: theoretical analysis, systematisation, technical and legal analysis, concretisation, and interpretation. Results. Based on the results of the analysis of law enforcement practices in administrative cases related to the illegal use of means of individualisation of goods, problems in judicial practice in such cases have been identified. These issues relate to the use of expert opinions as evidence of the unlawful use of means of individualisation of goods; the use of means of individualisation in domain names as a reflection of the digitalisation of the area of public relations under consideration; the interconnection between state control (supervision) institutions and administrative liability; the recognition of offences as minor; and the determination of the fate of counterfeit goods. Resolving these issues is intended to standardise law enforcement practices and increase the effectiveness of administrative and legal protection of rights to means of individualisation of goods.
means of individualisation, trademark, confiscation, administrative liability, counterfeit goods, expert opinion
1. Kulakov N. A., Savel'eva M. V. Konfiskaciya kak administrativnoe nakazanie za pravonarusheniya v oblasti avtorskih i smezhnyh prav // Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravoohranitel'naya praktika. 2016. № 2 (36). S. 23–27.
2. Dadasheva R. A. Ponyatie i suschnost' administrativnoy otvetstvennosti za narushenie prav na ob'ekty intellektual'noy sobstvennosti // Ugolovno-ispolnitel'noe pravo. 2016. № 3 (25). S. 80–84.
3. Letova N. V. Kategoriya «imuschestvo» v aspekte mezhotraslevogo regulirovaniya imuschestvennyh otnosheniy// Grazhdanskoe pravo. 2025. № 1. S. 6–9. https://doi.org/10.18572/2070-2140-2025-1-6-9
4. Kobzar'-Frolova M. N. Fenomen otvetstvennosti: pravovaya priroda, yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost', administrativnaya otvetstvennost' (tezisy) / Aktual'nye problemy administrativnogo i administrativno-processual'nogo prava (Sorokinskie chteniya) : sbornik statey po materialam mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferencii, g. Sankt-Peterburg, 21 marta 2025 g. Sankt-Peterburg : Sankt-Peterburgskiy universitet MVD Rossii, 2025. S. 359–367.
5. Agamagomedova S. A. Sootnoshenie administrativnoy i grazhdanskoy otvetstvennosti za nezakonnoe ispol'zovanie tovarnogo znaka // Intellektual'naya sobstvennost'. Promyshlennaya sobstvennost'. 2016. № 2. S. 19–26.
6. Chertakova E. M., Voronova E. M. Kontrafaktnaya produkciya – pravovye aspekty zaschity ob'ektov intellektual'noy sobstvennosti // Gosudarstvo i regiony. 2012. № 1. S. 54–56.
7. Gavrilov E. P. Novye tendencii v rossiyskom prave na sredstva individualizacii / Intellektual'nye prava: vyzovy XXI veka : sbornik dokladov II Mezhdunarodnoy konferencii, g. Tomsk, 10–14 noyabrya 2020 g. / pod red. E. P. Gavrilova, S. V. Butenko. Tomsk : Nacional'nyy issledovatel'skiy Tomskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet, 2020.S. 28–30.
8. Reforma administrativnoy otvetstvennosti v Rossii / Kirin A. V., Pligin V. N., Agisheva A. G. [i dr.] ; pod.obsch. red. A. V. Kirina, V. N. Pligina. Moskva : Izdatel'skiy dom Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 2018. 476 s. https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-1775-8
9. Kobzar'-Frolova M. N., Lebedeva E. A. K diskussii o celi i naznachenii administrativnoy otvetstvennosti v kontekste administrativnoy reformy // Vestnik Universiteta imeni O. E. Kutafina (MGYuA). 2018. № 1 (41). S. 117-120. https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2018.41.1.117-120
10. Lyutov V. P. Kontrafaktnaya produkciya i metody ee ekspertnogo issledovaniya // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. 2012. № 3. S. 201–203.
11. Rossinskiy B. V. Upravlencheskaya priroda administrativnogo usmotreniya // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. 2024. № 2. S. 87–91.
12. Minbaleev A. V. Sistema gosudarstvennogo upravleniya v sfere intellektual'noy sobstvennosti // Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pravo. 2016. T. 16, № 3. S. 112–115. https://doi.org/10.14529/law160319
13. Agamagomedova S. A. Osobennosti tamozhennogo kontrolya tovarov, soderzhaschih ob'ekty intellektual'noy sobstvennosti // Vestnik Rossiyskoy tamozhennoy akademii. 2013. № 1. S. 22–27.
14. Agamagomedova S. A. Priostanovlenie vypuska tovarov kak mera zaschity prav na ob'ekty intellektual'noy sobstvennosti tamozhennymi organami // Vestnik Rossiyskoy tamozhennoy akademii. 2011. № 4. S. 37–42.
15. Bliznec I. A., Tyunin M. V. Edinaya sreda doveriya v sfere ohrany prav na OIS v EAES // Intellektual'naya sobstvennost'. Avtorskoe pravo i smezhnye prava. 2024. № 3. S. 4–8.
