Russia's Constitutional Court Clarifies When Marketplace Operators May Avoid Liability for Third-Party IP Infringement

16 June 2026

Russia's Constitutional Court Clarifies When Marketplace Operators May Avoid Liability for Third-Party IP Infringement

On 16 June 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation issued Ruling No. 39-P on the constitutionality of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1253¹ of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in a case brought by LLC "Mir Khobbi". The ruling provides authoritative guidance on the conditions under which marketplace operators qualify as information intermediaries and may be exempt from liability for intellectual property infringements committed by third-party sellers.

Background

LLC "Mir Khobbi", the exclusive licensee of 21 illustrations and the box design for the board game Mafia. The Whole Family Together, discovered that counterfeit copies of the game were being offered for sale on a marketplace. Following an unsuccessful pre-trial demand, the company brought proceedings claiming compensation of RUB 9,200,000.

All three levels of arbitration courts, including the Intellectual Property Court, dismissed the claim. The courts held that the marketplace operator acted as an information intermediary and had satisfied the conditions for exemption from liability under Article 1253¹(3) of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court declined to refer the cassation appeal for hearing. The Constitutional Court accepted the complaint and held a hearing on 26 March 2026.

Key Holdings

1. Ancillary services do not disqualify intermediary status

Warehousing, advertising, delivery, and payment processing do not, in themselves, strip a marketplace of information intermediary status. The question must be assessed separately for each type of activity the operator performs.

2. The "should have known" standard — clarified

Marketplaces are not required to screen products proactively for IP infringement. However, a court may find that a marketplace should have known of the infringement where:

• the marketplace had previously taken enforcement action against the same seller regarding the same IP objects (whether following a rights holder complaint or a court order), and the seller has repeated the infringement; or
• the infringement is obvious — for instance, where the price is anomalously low for the product category, or where the designation closely mimics a well-known brand.

3. What constitutes "necessary and sufficient measures"

As a general rule, the required response is suspension of the product listing for the period needed to resolve the rights holder's claim against the seller in court, or until interim measures are granted. To benefit from the exemption, the marketplace must also:

• verify prima facie that the complainant holds rights to the relevant IP object;
• request from the seller documentation confirming lawful use of the object;
• not rely on measures taken after the rights holder has already filed suit.

4. Protecting the seller: liability for unsubstantiated complaints

If the rights holder fails to bring court proceedings within a reasonable time, or if their claims are ultimately rejected as unsubstantiated, both the marketplace operator and the seller may claim damages from the complainant for losses caused by the suspension. The marketplace is also required to disclose to the seller the identity of the complainant.

Outcome

Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1253¹ of the Civil Code were found consistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, provided they are applied in accordance with the interpretation set out in the ruling. The case of LLC "Mir Khobbi" is to be reconsidered by the lower courts. The new constitutional interpretation takes effect three months after the ruling was pronounced, except in relation to the retrial of the applicant's own case.

📎 Constitutional Court Ruling No. 39-P, 16 June 2026 (full text, PDF)