News

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has accepted for consideration a complaint from the major board game publisher Hobby World, which challenges the constitutionality of clauses 1 and 3 of Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code regarding the liability of information intermediaries.

The reason was a case concerning counterfeit copies of the game "Mafia. The Whole Family is Gathered" placed on Wildberries. According to the applicant, after a fruitless pre-trial claim to the marketplace, a lawsuit was filed to recover compensation for infringement of rights to illustrations and box design. The court refused, stating that Wildberries is not a seller and cannot be held liable as an information intermediary, and higher courts upheld this position. Now the issue has ended up in the Constitutional Court.

We do not know the content of Hobby World's complaint itself – only comments in the media. However, the very fact that the Constitutional Court has accepted the case for consideration makes it significant for the entire industry.

Our Comments

Even within the framework of Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code (and Hobby World's lawyer reportedly refers to the inapplicability of this norm to marketplaces, according to a Vedomosti publication), courts most often dismiss claims against marketplaces – despite the fact that the latter often fail to take the reasonable and prompt measures for removing counterfeits stipulated by law.

For example, at the end of 2025, Wildberries massively sent official decisions to block listings with counterfeits, but the technical blocking was delayed for weeks. And all this happened, among other times, during peak sales seasons when turnover is especially high. Sales of counterfeits continued despite the blocking decision.

Or, right now we are disputing a case against Avito in a situation where a user posted a listing for the same counterfeit product more than 30 (!) times over six months, and all Avito did was delete the next listing after our complaint.

To us, it is obvious that the platforms' actions in such situations do not fall under the rules of "immunity" guaranteed to them by Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code, because an information intermediary is exempt from liability only if – firstly – "it did not know and should not have known" about the unlawful use of intellectual property and – secondly – "did not promptly take the necessary and sufficient measures to stop the infringement of intellectual rights" (subclause 2, clause 3, Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code). How can one not know that the 30th clone listing infringes rights if the platform has blocked it 29 times before on the grounds of infringement?..

Marketplace liability is not merely a matter of convenience for recovery. It is a necessary part of law enforcement. Counterfeits are often sold under the auspices of platforms, and proving their inaction is possible and necessary. Especially in situations where blocking listings is stretched out for weeks, and rights holders are deprived of effective levers. In this regard, the position of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry that Hobby World is simply looking for a more solvent debtor is puzzling.

This publication once again shows how strong the position of marketplaces is and how fragmented rights holders are, just like in the very game that is the subject of the dispute…

We will continue to monitor the progress of the case in the Constitutional Court. Its outcome could affect the e-commerce market and the approach to combating counterfeits on digital platforms.

If you have questions regarding the protection of intellectual property and combating counterfeiting on marketplaces, you can contact us via the Telegram bot magenta_contact_bot.

You will learn more about our practice of the intellectual property protection in the next news under the link MAGENTA_IP in Telegram.