The Russian authorities have come very close to what international lawyers are already openly calling institutionalized theft of intellectual property. Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak announced that the Ministry of Economic Development, together with Rospatent, is working on a mechanism of “external temporary administration” over patents, trademarks, and other IP assets belonging to foreign companies from “unfriendly” countries — the same companies that left the Russian market after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
In simple terms: the state will appoint a “manager” who, without any consent from IKEA, Apple, or any other company, will be able to issue licenses to Russian manufacturers allowing them to use those brands and technologies.
Russia already has a mechanism for compulsory patent licensing through the courts. It is used mainly in the pharmaceutical sector and formally fits within the narrow framework of the WTO TRIPS agreement. The new proposal goes much further: it would cover trademarks, software, and media content — precisely the categories of intellectual property where value is determined not by technology but by reputation and consumer trust.
There are virtually no precedents for such a mechanism in global practice. This is not accidental. No country that seeks to remain part of the global economy engages in such practices, because the consequences for the investment climate would be catastrophic.
From the perspective of international law, the proposed scheme is problematic on several levels. Russia formally remains a participant in the Berne and Paris Conventions. TRIPS allows compulsory licensing only under extraordinary circumstances, strictly for the domestic market and with the payment of “adequate compensation.” However, the proposed mechanism provides for none of these conditions.
The issue of trademarks is particularly sensitive. A trademark is not merely a logo — it is a guarantee of quality and origin. When someone else begins producing goods under the brand of a well-known company, it is not only a violation of the owner’s rights; it is a direct act of misleading consumers.
The companies that hold these rights will not remain passive. Goods produced under such “licenses” will be vulnerable to legal action in any jurisdiction where they appear. The seizure of assets belonging to Russian companies in Europe or the United States for IP violations is a very real scenario. Precedents since 2022 already exist.
The Kremlin will likely present this step as a symmetrical response to the freezing of Russian assets by Western countries. But this logic has a fundamental flaw: the freezing of assets is a consequence of aggression, not its cause. Stealing the brands of the victims of its own war is unlikely to appear convincing even in neutral jurisdictions.
The greatest irony is that this mechanism could permanently close the door to the return of foreign companies — something some Russian officials still claim they would welcome. No serious company will enter a market where the state can at any moment appoint a “manager” to control its trademark.
Russia is consciously choosing the path of a final break with international intellectual property norms — adding to similar moves already made in the fields of energy, finance, and security. This is not merely a legal anomaly. It is a deliberate choice of economic isolation, formalized through a legal mechanism.
Rospatent has promised to present the specific parameters of the scheme by mid-2026. By then, the international community will have yet another reason to conclude that rules considered binding for everyone else are regarded in Moscow as optional for itself.
