No evidence, no authorship: appeal court overturns RUB 5 million award in handbag design case

Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal · 16 March 2026 · Case No. А40-37151/23

Individual entrepreneur Elena Petrova brought a copyright infringement claim against individual entrepreneur Yulia Fortuna, seeking RUB 5,000,000 in compensation for alleged unauthorised use of her transformer handbag design. The Moscow first-instance court granted the claim in full. The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal has now reversed that decision.

The claimant maintained she was the sole author of a transparent modular bag with an original system of interchangeable inner pouches, straps, and accessories. She alleged the defendant sold copies under the names "bloom" and "Crystal" through her website, social media, and an online marketplace.

The appeal court focused on proof of creative contribution — the constitutive element of copyright protection. It found that comparable modular bag designs had been produced by other designers, including internationally recognised ones, before the claimant published photographs of the disputed design. Crucially, no original patterns, prototypes, or other documentary evidence of independent creative authorship was produced.

The patent dimension proved equally significant. The claimant's design patent No. 134782 was invalidated by Rospatent on the ground that the product's appearance was already publicly known prior to the priority date. This resulted from a breach of the 12-month grace period: Russian IP law gives authors exactly twelve months from first public disclosure to file a patent application. Miss that window, and the author's own prior publications become grounds for invalidation.

The court was careful to note that copyright and design patent rights are distinct, independently enforceable categories of IP. Invalidation of a patent does not automatically defeat a copyright claim. However, to succeed, the claimant must establish that the specific design resulted from her own creative work — and that burden was not discharged here.

Outcome: first-instance decision set aside; claim dismissed in full. The claimant was ordered to reimburse the defendant's court fee (RUB 10,000) and expert examination costs (RUB 130,000).

The case is a clear reminder of the importance of timely IP protection. Designers should consult a patent attorney before publicly unveiling a product, document the creative process carefully, and observe statutory filing deadlines. We will continue to monitor further developments.

📎 Ninth AAC ruling, 16.03.2026 · Case No. А40-37151/23 (PDF)