Main Article Content



The article discusses the implementation of the principle of exhaustion of the exclusive right to a trade mark in the conditions of parallel importation. The article analyses the approaches to the understanding of parallel import. Conclusions are drawn about the advantages and disad-vantages of the phenomenon of parallel import. The author analyses two models of implementation of the principle of exhaustion of the exclusive right to trademark - international and national on the example of Russia, the USA and Canada. The author made conclusions about the most relevant model of exhaustion of exclusive right to a trademark for importers, right holders and consumers.

Article Details



H.J. Heinz Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Edan Foods Sales Inc., 1991, 35 C.P.R. 3d p. 213.

Herman Cohen Jehoram: Prohibition of Parallel Imports Through Intellectual Property Rights, 30 I.I.C. 495 (1999).

Sebastian Int‟l v. Longs Drug Stores Corp., 53 F.3d 1073, 1074, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1720, 1722 (9th Cir. 1995)

Bonadio E.: Parallel Imports in a Global Market: Should a Generalised International Exhaustion be the Next Step? European Intellectual Property Review, 33(3), 155(2011).

Skoko H, Krivokapic-Skoko B.: Theory and Practice of Parallel Imports: An Essay. In Bobek V, editor, 6th Proceedings: Managing the Process of Globalisation in New and Upcoming EU Members. Portoroz, Slovenia: Faculty of Management, Koper, 467 (2005).

Clugston C.: "International Exhaustion, Parallel Imports, and the Conflict between the Patent and Copyright Laws of the United States," Beijing Law Review, 4(3), 95 (2013).

Coke E.: The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England. Vol. 1. London: J. & L.G. Hansard & Sons, 412 (1832).

Ghosh S.: Implementation of the exhaustion of rights doctrine: conclusions based on national experience.Trade Policy, 4/4, 24-87 (2015).

Khusainov R.I.: Shades of gray: trends in disputes on parallel imports. Khozyaistvo i parvo, 2., 103-109. (2019).

Grigoriadis L.G. (2016). Exhaustion of Trade Marks Rights and Parallel Imports in Canada. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (Forthcoming). URL:

Calboli I. (2011). Market Integration and (the Limits of) the First Sale Rule in North American and European Trademark Law // Santa Clara Law Review. Vol. 51. No. 4. pp.1241–1282.

Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc., v. Granada Electronics 816 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1987).

Lever Brothers Co. v. United States, 981 F.2d 1330 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

Skullcandy v. Filter USA et al, No. 2:2018cv00748

Frolova E.E., Kupchina E.V. (2023). Digital tools for the protection of intellectual property rights: the example of blockchain and artificial intelligence. Vestnik of Perm University. Juridical sciences. № 61. pp. 479-498.

Rusakova E.P., Frolova E.E. (2022). Introduction of digital methods of protection of rights as a legal guarantee of business activity in the modern world (on the example of China) Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies. T. 254. pp. 121-130.

Rusakova E.P., Frolova E.E. (2022). Digital disputes in the new legal reality. RUDN Journal of Law. Т. 26. № 3. pp. 695-704.

Skoko Hazbo (2023). Theory and practice of parallel imports: the New Zealand case. ResearchGate, Charles Sturt University URL:

The Costs and Benefits of Preventing Parallel Imports into New Zealand. Report commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development, February 2012, p. 12.

Joshi D. (2012). A point of view on parallel imports. Global Policy Essay URL:

Fang H., Jiayu L. A Global Perspective: Do Parallel Imports Constitute Trademark Infringement? King&Wood Mallesons URL:

Bicen, Pelin, and Gudigantala, Naveen (2014) Parallel imports debate: Resource Advantage theory perspective. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 8(3), pp. 25-42.

Law of the Russian Federation of September 23, 1992 No. 3520-1 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin of Goods".

Trademarks and designs if there’s no Brexit deal (2019). Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy of the UK URL:

Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924).

19 U.S. Code § 1526 – Merchandise bearing American trademark // Chapter 4. Tariff Act of 1930.

Trademark Act of 1946, as Amended.

Lever Brothers Co., Appellant, v. United States of America.

Davis, M (2018). Canada: Court Enforces Agreement to Stop Grey Marketing // ManagingIP. May, 10, 2018. URL: