CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← All reviewsHome
Added to the CasusLegal database Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 16, 2026 No. 39-П (official publication on ksrf.ru), issued following the complaint of Mir Hobby LLC. The Court provided a constitutional interpretation of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as applied to marketplace operators acting as information intermediaries.
Resolution No. 39-П held paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation consistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation as constitutionally and legally interpreted. A marketplace operator may be recognized as an information intermediary if, in addition to hosting materials, it provides other services to support the operation of the platform.
The key clarification concerns the condition for exemption from liability for the actions of a third-party seller. As a general rule, taking necessary and sufficient measures entails suspending the display of information about the disputed product at the rightholder's request for a period sufficient to bring an action against the seller or seek interim measures. This condition applies where the request contains information making it possible to establish that the applicant owns the relevant intellectual property and indicating that the seller's use of it is unlawful or raising substantiated doubts as to its lawfulness.
The Court stated that the neutrality of an information intermediary must not serve as a means of evading the suppression of infringements. Platforms' reliance on the promptness of measures that were in fact taken only after an action had been filed was held inadequate.
There are currently no special clarifications from the Plenum or reviews of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation concerning the application of Resolution No. 39-П in the database: the decision was adopted recently. The procedural context of disputes concerning counterfeit goods on marketplaces is defined by two decisions of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes.
Burden of proof in made-to-order sales. Decision dated 03.06.2025 No. 309-ЭС25-764 (case No. А76-28418/2023): under a trading model in which goods are not stored in a warehouse, the respondent is not required to prove the lawful origin of specific items if it confirms a genuine possibility of lawfully acquiring them from an authorized dealer. In such circumstances, the claimant bears the burden of proving that the goods are counterfeit.
Calculation of compensation. Decision dated 24.04.2025 No. 307-ЭС24-21900 (case No. А42-5880/2023): compensation under subparagraph 2 of paragraph 4 of Article 1515 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation may not be calculated on the basis of aggregated marketplace reports without identifying specific instances of the sale of counterfeit goods and separating them from lawful goods of the same seller sold under other brands.
During the period in which the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation operated (until 2014), marketplaces in their modern form did not exist, and disputes concerning the sale of counterfeit goods through such platforms were not heard. The former practice of classifying information intermediaries developed around hosting providers and operators of conventional websites that provided space for storing user-generated content.
The Constitutional Court established a three-month postponement (paragraph 4 of the operative part of the Resolution No. 39-П). The interpretation set out above must be applied by the courts from September 16, 2026. The postponement was granted to allow platforms to adapt their internal electronic logistics procedures to the rules governing the suspension of product listings in response to rightholders' requests.