News

In our IP enforcement practice, we regularly encounter situations where a competitor uses someone else's infographics, photos, or design elements in a product listing on a marketplace. Typically, these are modified images, commercial infographics, product benefit layouts, and sometimes fully copied mockups.

Let's break down the key issues: how to prove authorship, what risks exist when calculating damages, and what amounts you can realistically expect.

Proving authorship: are source files enough?

Recent court practice is fairly consistent: to prove authorship of a photographic work or a design work, the existence of source files is generally considered sufficient.

In particular:

1. In Case No. A43-17001/2025 (Ruling of the First Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 26.01.2026 No. 01AP-5013/2025), the court found authorship of infographics proven based on the source file (.png), metadata about its creation, and screenshots from Figma confirming the creation process.
2. In Case No. A40-129196/2024 (Ruling of the IP Court dated 18.07.2025 No. S01-876/2025), source files in .psd format with layers, metadata, and creation date were recognised as sufficient evidence.

In other words, if the rights holder has:

• a source file with preserved layers,
• metadata,
• confirmation of creation in a graphic editor,— in most cases this is enough to prove authorship.

If a company has screenshots of the source file properties and access to the file itself (e.g., via cloud storage), such evidence is considered acceptable and consistent with established practice.

Calculating damages: not so straightforward

There is often a temptation to calculate damages using the formula:“number of listings × number of works × amount of compensation per violation”.

However, there are important caveats.

Risk of “serial” works

If the infographics were created as part of a single creative process, at the same time, and for the same object, the court may combine several images into one work.

This approach is reflected, for example, in Case No. A41-4967/2025 (Ruling of the IP Court dated 13.10.2025 No. S01-1267/2025).

If a source folder contains, say, 8 infographics, the court may conclude that some of them constitute a single creative result. Depending on the structure of the materials, there is a risk of partially “cutting down” the number of works.

Risk of combining multiple infringements into one

A separate issue is the so-called “unity of intent” of the infringer.

If the infringer:

• posted several listings with the same infographics,
• or used several works in the sale of a single batch of goods,the court may combine the episodes into one infringement based on a single economic purpose.

This position can be seen, for example:

1. In Case No. A53-39679/2023 (Ruling of the IP Court dated 24.06.2024 No. S01-958/2024),
2. In Case No. A56-19499/2024 (Ruling of the 13th Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 01.10.2024 No. 13AP-21517/2024).

If we are dealing with a “repeat offender” who systematically uses the same infographics across multiple listings, the risk of episode consolidation must be taken into account.

At the same time, it is important to remember:the court is not obliged to identify unity of intent on its own. According to paragraph 4 of the Recommendations of the Advisory Council at the IP Court, the defendant must prove the relevant circumstances.

Actual damages awarded: practice is not encouraging

A separate word on the amount of compensation.

In theory, you can claim amounts significantly higher than RUB 10,000 per infringement. In practice, courts in cases involving infographics and photos in marketplace listings very rarely go beyond RUB 10,000 per work.

Examples:

1. Case No. A53-39679/2023: RUB 10,000 awarded for each infringement (total RUB 20,000), against claimed amounts of RUB 25,000 and RUB 35,000.
2. Case No. A56-19499/2024: RUB 10,000 per infringement (total RUB 120,000), against claimed RUB 330,000.Case No. A71-14305/2024: RUB 10,000 per infringement (total RUB 250,000), against claimed RUB 375,000.
3. Case No. A 22-1455/2023: the court of appeal reduced the award to RUB 110,000 (the first instance had initially awarded RUB 420,000).
4. Case No. A40-175840/2023: RUB 12,000 per infringement (total RUB 336,000).

Thus, in the absence of aggravating circumstances and large‑scale turnover, it is difficult to expect a substantially higher amount per work.

Practical takeaway

If a competitor is using your infographics:

• First, ensure proper documentation of the infringement (including notarised evidence if necessary).
• Check the availability of source  files and metadata – this is key to proving authorship.
• Realistically assess the risks of works and episodes being combined.
• Calculate your claim amount based on current court practice, not on maximalist expectations.

If you have encountered the use of your infographics, photos, or design on a marketplace – you can describe your situation via our Telegram bot: @magenta_contact_bot