Статья 4117

Title of the article



Sizov Vladimir Aleksandrovich, Candidate of sociological sciences, associate professor, sub-department of justice, Penza State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia); head of the Department of economic security and corruption counteraction of the Penza regional office of MIA (22 Kirpichnaya street, Penza, Russia), vas-055@mail.ru

Index UDK





Background. Means of individualization of goods (works, services) are an integral part of the market economy. Public danger of offenses related to illegal products trafficking consists not only in violation of rightholders’ rights to various means of individualization and supply of poor quality products to the market, but also in shaping the criminal market and intensifying the shadow turnover of money and commodities. The practice of criminal legal protection of the means of individualization shows that its results are inadequate to the real situation. There is no uniform methodology for determining, including for the purposes of criminal proceedings, the damage caused by infringements of intellectual property rights that gives rise to problems in determining the am unt of damages. At the same time, both in the theory and in law enforcement there are differences in determining what is corpus delicti based on, provided for by Part 1 of Article 180 of the Criminal Code. These contradictions lead to a “slippage” of the criminal legal mechanism to combat crime under Article 180 of the Criminal Code.
Materials and methods. The article presents statistical data on the crimes registered in the Penza region falling under Article 180 of the Criminal Code; an analysis of the operational situation and legal framework of the Russian Federation in the field of protection of intellectual property rights.
Results. In practice, criminal proceedings under Part 1 Article 180 of the Criminal Code are instituted against persons involved in the illegal use of a trademark placed on several objects. Formally, this practice is consistent with the existing criminal law, and, in essence, under such circumstances the distinction between an administrative offense and a criminal offense is actually erased. In addition, some authors believe that a person may be prosecuted under part 1 of article 180 of the Criminal Code only under the condition of causing major damage to rightholders of the means of individualization, without considering a repeated commission of the crime as a criminally punishable act. On the other hand, the use of the term “repeatedly” in the legal literature and legal practice is based on the ordinary meaning of this concept, that is, as a positive sign of a crime it can not be a type of multiplicity. However, there are different points of view on the calculation of lost profits of rightful copyright holders, which also creates objective difficulties encountered in practice by the relevant criminal proceedings.
Conclusions. In order to solve these problems the article proposes to improve the Russian legislation by excluding the term “repeatedly” from disposition of part 1 Article 180 of the Criminal Code of Russia and at the same time to formulate other conditions of criminal responsibility, allowing to unequivocally distinguish crimes and administrative offenses. In addition, there is a need to develop an adequate method for determining the amount of damage in criminal cases of intellectual property violations as soon as possible.

Key words

intellectual property, means of individualization of goods (works, services), trademark, repeatedly, damage

Download PDF

1. Bliznets I. A. Pravo intellektual'noy sobstvennosti [Intellectual property right]. Moscow: Prospekt, 2013, 960 p.
2. Pankevich L. L. Imushchestvennye otnosheniya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [property relations in the Russian Federation]. 2012, no. 2, pp. 103–109.
3. Safonov A. Yu., Namnyasev V. V. Metodika rassledovaniya nezakonnogo ispol'zovaniya tovarnogo znaka: nauch.-prakt. posobie [The methodology of illegal trademark use investigation: a scientific and practical tutorial]. Volgograd: VNII MVD Rossii, 2011, 108 p.
4. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collected laws of the Russian Federation]. 2003, no. 50, art. 4848.
5. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo Suda RF [Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation]. 2007, no. 7.
6. Isaeva R. M., Kudryavtsev A. V., Kutsenko S. M., Ruzanova Z. Z. Metodika i taktika rassledovaniya prestupleniy, predusmotrennykh ch.ch. 1, 2 st. 180 UK RF: metod. rekomendatsii [Methods and approaches to investigation of crimes provided for by parts 1, 2 article 180 of the Criminal Code of Russia]. Ufa: FGKOU VPO UYuI MVD Rossii, 2011, 42 p.
7. Patenty i litsenzii [Patents and licenses]. 2003, no. 3.
8. Titov S. N. Ugolovno-pravovoe obespechenie okhrany intellektual'noy sobstvennosti: dis. kand. yurid. nauk [Criminal legal protection of intellectual property: dissertation to apply for the degree of the candidate of juridical sciences]. Moscow, 2013, 209 p.


Дата создания: 28.08.2017 09:26
Дата обновления: 28.08.2017 15:53