ST 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. Illegal use of someone else’s trademark, service mark, appellation of origin of goods or similar designations for homogeneous goods, if this act was committed repeatedly or caused major damage, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to two years, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred eighty hours, or by corrective labor for a term of up to two years, or by forced labor for a term of up to two years. up to two years, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years with a fine in the amount of up to eighty thousand rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to six months.
2. Illegal use of warning markings in relation to a trademark or appellation of origin of goods not registered in the Russian Federation, if this act was committed repeatedly or caused major damage, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to one hundred twenty thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one year, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to three hundred and sixty hours, or by corrective labor for a term of up to one year.
3. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to four hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of eighteen months to three years, or by forced labor for a term of up to four years, or by imprisonment for the same term with a fine of up to one hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one year or without it.
4. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, committed by an organized group, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of five hundred thousand to one million rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of three to five years, or by forced labor for a term of up to five years, or by imprisonment for a term of up to six years with a fine of up to five hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to three years or without it.
Note. In this article, major damage is defined as damage the amount of which exceeds two hundred and fifty thousand rubles.
Commentary to Art. 180 Criminal Code
1. The subject of the crime in Part 1 of Art. 180 of the Criminal Code are: trademark, service mark, place of origin of goods or similar designations for similar goods (see Chapter 76 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Designations similar to trademarks, service marks, and the name of place of origin of goods for homogeneous goods are designations that are identical or similar to other people’s marks and names to the extent of confusion (clause 22 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 26, 2007 No. 14 “ On the practice of courts considering criminal cases of violation of copyright, related, inventive and patent rights, as well as illegal use of a trademark”).
Legal protection of a trademark, service mark and appellation of origin of goods is carried out on the basis of their state registration, for which a certificate is issued in the name of a legal entity or individual entrepreneur, which certifies the exclusive right of its owner to this mark (name) in relation to the goods and services specified in the certificate.
A trademark (service mark) is considered alien if it is registered in the name of another person and is not assigned under an agreement in relation to all or part of the goods, or the right to use which is not granted by the owner of the trademark to another person under a license agreement.
2. Illegal use means the use on the territory of Russia of a corresponding designation or similar to it (to the point of confusion) without the permission of the copyright holder (clauses 18 - 21 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 26, 2007 No. 14).
3. Criminal liability for illegal use occurs only in cases where this act was committed repeatedly or caused major damage (over 250 thousand rubles).
Repeated behavior presupposes the commission by a person of two or more acts consisting of the illegal use of a trademark, service mark, appellation of origin of goods or similar designations for similar goods. In this case, there may be either repeated use of the same means of individualization of a product (service), or the simultaneous use of two or more foreign trademarks or other means of individualization on one unit of goods. Placing someone else's trademark on items included in one batch of manufactured goods constitutes a continued act that is not repeated.
4. To notify about his exclusive right to a trademark (service mark, etc.), the right holder has the right to use a protection sign, which is placed next to the trademark (appellation of origin of the product) and consists of the Latin letter R or the Latin letter R in a circle or the verbal designation “trademark” or “registered trademark” (“registered appellation of origin” or “registered appellation of origin”) and indicates that the designation used is a trademark (appellation of origin), protected and registered in the territory Russian Federation.
This warning marking is the subject of a crime under Part 2 of Art. 180 CC.
Article 180. Entry into force of a decision or court order
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated October 1, 2019 N 2586-O Part 1 of Article, Part 1 of Article 180, Part 1 of Article 182 and Part 1 of Article 318 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, establishing the rule on the general bindingness of judicial acts of the arbitration court that have entered into legal force, as well as establishing the procedure for the entry into force of a decision of an arbitration court of first instance and, in conjunction with other requirements of this Code and other federal laws, the procedure for its execution, are aimed at the correct and timely execution of judicial acts of arbitration courts that have entered into legal force and, thus, at the implementation of the instructions Article 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and therefore cannot be considered as violating the constitutional rights of the applicant listed in the complaint.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 29, 2019 N 307-ES19-19830 in case N A56-65240/2018
Refusing to satisfy the institution's request to restore the missed deadline and returning the cassation appeal, the district court was guided by articles , , 117, 180, 276 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the explanations given in paragraphs 32 and 34 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 25, 2013 N “On procedural deadlines,” and proceeded from the fact that the applicant missed the deadline for filing a cassation appeal and the lack of grounds for satisfying the request for his reinstatement.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 27, 2019 N 302-ES19-21153 in case N A58-9858/2018
Returning the cassation appeal, the cassation court, guided by the provisions of Articles 180, 276 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, considered that the bankruptcy manager missed the procedural deadline for filing a cassation appeal against the decision of 01/25/2019 and the resolution of 05/17/2019. Checking the legality of the ruling dated 08/01/2019 in accordance with Article 291 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the district court recognized the court’s conclusions that the bankruptcy manager had missed the deadline for filing a cassation appeal were erroneous, but left the said judicial act unchanged due to the fact that the legality of the decision from 01/25/2019 and the resolution of 05/17/2019 have already been verified in cassation proceedings, and the current procedural legislation does not provide for the possibility of re-verifying judicial acts in cassation proceedings.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 10, 2017 in case No. 307-ES16-18457, A66-3120/2016
Meanwhile, in accordance with Part 3 of Article 180 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, decisions of the arbitration court in cases considered in summary proceedings, and in cases provided for by the said Code or other federal law, and in other cases, enter into legal force within the time limits and in the manner specified established by this Code or other federal law.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 12, 2017 N 309-ES17-4081 in case N A07-27184/2015
Since this decision of the arbitration court in case No. A07-18618/2013 was made in December 2013, the court came to the conclusion that, on the basis of Part 1 of Article 180 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, it came into force on January 14, 2014, and therefore indicated that the court of first instance had no legal basis for applying Article 24.20 of the Federal Law of July 29, 1998 N 135-FZ (as amended by the Federal Law of July 21, 2014 N 225-FZ) and extending the validity of the new value of the cadastral value of the land plot for the period from February 27. 2013.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 23, 2017 N 309-ES17-6093 in case N A60-4709/2016
Refusing to satisfy the demands, the courts, guided by Articles 112, 180, 182, 187, 188, 318, 319 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for issuing a writ of execution to determine the collection of legal costs before the expiration of the period for appealing this judicial act.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 13, 2017 in case No. 310-ES16-6559, A35-9424/2009
Thus, in the case under consideration, the last judicial act, the adoption of which ended the consideration of the case on the merits, should be considered the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Kursk Region dated May 29, 2014, which entered into legal force in accordance with Part 1 of Article 180 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on June 30, 2014 (including weekends days).
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 25, 2017 N 307-ES17-10980 in case N A56-68178/2015
Having assessed the evidence presented in the case materials, guided by the provisions of Articles 117, 180, 273, 276, 281 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the legal position set out in the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2010 N 6-P, having established the circumstances of the person’s omission , not involved in the case, the period for appealing judicial acts, his proper knowledge of their adoption by the courts of first and appellate instances, in the absence of evidence of good reasons that objectively prevented the timely completion of the procedural action by the party, the district court refused to satisfy the applicant’s request for reinstatement missed procedural deadline for filing a cassation appeal.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 6, 2017 N 306-ES17-11599 in case N A49-14323/2016
The courts, guided by the provisions of Articles 117, 176, 180, 259 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, stated the absence of objective and independent of the applicant reasons for reinstating the procedural deadline missed by the institution. The conclusions made by the courts correspond to the norms of law; there are no grounds for re-evaluating these conclusions.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 11, 2017 N 309-KG17-12119 in case N A47-13361/2015
At the same time, obstacles to the implementation of actions for indisputable debt collection occurred only during the period of validity of interim measures taken by the court ruling dated May 13, 2014 in case No. A47-4626/2014. At the same time, these interim measures were canceled by a court decision dated 10/07/2014 and ceased to have effect from the moment the judicial act entered into legal force, namely from 12/16/2014 - the day the decision of the arbitration court of appeal was adopted (Article 180 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation) , while decisions to collect N 4100 and N 4101 were made by the inspectorate on June 10, 2015 (almost six months later).
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 26, 2017 N 301-ES17-14704 in case N A43-3537/2015
In this case, the writ of execution in accordance with Articles 180, 182 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is subject to issue after the court decision enters into legal force from the date of adoption of the decision of the arbitration court of appeal. If the decision of the district court is unclear, the applicant has the right to apply for clarification in accordance with Article 179 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Second commentary to Art. 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The basic concepts are set out in the Resolution of the RF Supreme Court of April 26, 2007 No. 14 “On the practice of courts considering criminal cases of violation of copyright, related, inventive and patent rights, as well as illegal use of a trademark.”
2. The subject under Part 1 of Art. 180 of the Criminal Code are:
1) someone else's trademark;
2) someone else's service mark;
3) someone else’s name of place of origin of the goods (hereinafter referred to as AO);
4) designations similar to them for homogeneous goods.
3. Items under Part 1 of Art. 180 of the Criminal Code must be:
1) strangers to the guilty person;
2) registered in our country.
Designations similar to trademarks, service marks, and trademarks for homogeneous goods are designations that are identical or similar to other people’s marks and names to the point of confusion with them. For example, Panasonix instead of Panasonic - for radio equipment; Gillello instead of Gillette - for razor blades; Culgate instead of Colgate for toothpaste; and so on.
4. The subject under Part 2 of Art. 180 of the Criminal Code is a warning marking in relation to a trademark or innovative product not registered in the Russian Federation (in accordance with the Civil Code, it is called a trademark protection mark or a trademark protection sign). To notify about his exclusive right to a trademark, the right holder has the right to use a protection sign, which is placed next to the trademark, consists of the Latin letter “R” or the Latin letter “R” in a circle - ® or the verbal designation “trademark” or “registered trademark sign" and indicates that the designation used is a trademark protected in the territory of the Russian Federation (Article 1485 of the Civil Code).
5. The objective side of the crimes provided for in Part 1 and Part 2 of Art. 180 of the Criminal Code, consists of the illegal use of objects of a crime if the act was committed repeatedly or caused major damage.
6. Repeatability within the meaning of Part 1 of Art. 180 of the Criminal Code presupposes the commission by a person of two or more acts consisting of the illegal use of a trademark, service mark, trademark or similar designations for homogeneous goods. In this case, there may be either repeated use of the same means of individualization of a product (service), or the simultaneous use of two or more foreign trademarks or other means of individualization on one unit of goods. In relation to Part 2 of Art. 180 of the Criminal Code, repeated illegal use of warning markings in relation to a trademark or an innovative product not registered in the Russian Federation is recognized two or more times (clause 15 of the 2007 resolution).
7. In material terms, the crime is completed from the moment of causing major damage (exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand rubles, note to the article).
8. The subjective side is characterized by an intentional form of guilt. When using warning labels under Part 2 of Art. 180 of the Criminal Code, the offender must know that the trademark or appellation of origin has not been registered in the Russian Federation.
9. The subject is individuals, individual entrepreneurs, managers and ordinary employees of legal entities, regardless of the form of ownership, legal form and purpose of activity, citizenship and other characteristics.
10. Qualified squads are provided for in Part 3 and Part 4 of the article.
