The right of prior use for geographical indications and designations of origin, similar to the right of prior use for inventions, utility models and industrial designs

today, regional brands are a powerful tool for the economic development of territories, contributing to the promotion of unique goods and services, as well as preserving the cultural heritage of the regions. In Russia, where regions have significant autonomy in the field of socio-economic development, the legal regulation of regional brands is becoming particularly relevant. Regional brands are being integrated into import substitution and export potential strategies. At the same time, effective development of regional brands is impossible without their proper legal protection. The relevance of the study is due to the increasing role of regional brands in the socio-economic development of the subjects of the Russian Federation and the need to improve the legal protection for Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and geographical indications (GI`s). The aim of the work is to identify gaps in legal regulation that violate the balance of interests of copyright holders and bona fide manufacturers, as well as to develop proposals to eliminate them, including the possibility of applying the institute of pre–use law by analogy with patent law. The research uses the methods of logical and system analysis, as well as the comparative method. The legal basis was made up of regulatory legal acts of Russia, while the empirical basis was statistical data and court decisions. The current regulation does not provide an adequate level of information to market participants about the registration of PDO and GI, and does not provide for mechanisms to protect manufacturers who have used the relevant designations in good faith. The scientific novelty lies in the justification of the need to introduce a sub-institution of the right of pre-use in relation to PDO and GI, as well as in the development of specific proposals to improve notification procedures through chambers of commerce and industry and the introduction of a transitional period (at least one and a half years). The practical significance of the results lies in the possibility of their use in the improvement of civil legislation and the formation of law enforcement practice. The conclusion is made about the expediency of a comprehensive reform of legal regulation aimed at protecting bona fide producers without prejudice to the interests of consumers. The prospects for research are related to the development of mechanisms to prove the extent of misuse and prevent abuse of this right.

1. Radetskaya, M. V. and Turkina, A. E. (2025), “Law

2. enforcement practice on issues of protection of

3. geographical indications and appellations of origin: analysis of problems and possible solutions

4. (Part 1)”, Journal of the Intellectual Property Rights,

5. no. 1, pp. 121–131.

6. Radetskaya, M. V. and Turkina, A. E. (2025), “Law

7. enforcement practice on issues of protection of geographical indications and appellations of origin: analysis

8. of problems and possible solutions (Part 2)”, Journal

9. of the Intellectual Property Court, no. 2, pp. 88–96.

10. Kulikov, O. A. (2025), “Legal protection of traditional

11. knowledge through intellectual property institutions”,

12. Journal of the Intellectual Property Rights, no. 36,

13. pp. 126–140.

14. Sychev, A. E. and Rogozhina, M. M. (2024), “Specific

15. features of the use by Russian manufacturers of

16. geographical indications, appellations of origin, and

17. trademarks”, Bulletin of Federal Institute of Industrial

18. Property, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 276–287.

19. Sedov, P. D. (2024), “International legal regulation of

20. geographical indications under the Lisbon Agreement

21. and the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications”. Agrarian

22. and Land Law, no. 4 (232), pp. 269–272.

23. Radetskaya, M. V., Spiridonova, N. B. and Turkina, A. Е.

24. (2024), “Some aspects of foreign legislation and judicial

25. practice of individual countries on the issues of ratio

26. of regimes of protection of geographical indication

27. and place of origin name, as well as other means of

28. individualization of similar assignment, used in foreign

29. legal orders’ (Part 1). Journal of the Intellectual Property

30. Rights Court, no. 43, pp. 139–163.

31. Turkina, A. E. (2025), “Certification marks abroad and in

32. Russia: relationship with the institutions of geographical

33. indication and place of origin of goods”. Journal of the

34. Intellectual Property Rights Court, no. 50, pp. 191–197.

35. Buzanov, V. Yu. (2017), “The institution of prior use

36. in patent law”, Journal of Russian Law, no. 7 (247),

37. pp. 69–80.

38. Oganesyan, A. N. (2015), “Certain features of the

39. consideration in judicial and arbitration practice of

40. disputes concerning the right of prior use”, Journal of

41. the Intellectual Property Court, no. 8, pp. 64–68.

42. Anpilogova, D. S. (2015), “Current issues of the right of

43. prior use”, Education and Law, no. 11 (75), pp. 310–315.

44. Sagdeeva, L. V. (2018), “Rights of prior and subsequent

45. use as encumbrances of exclusive rights”, Journal of

46. Russian Law, no. 8, pp. 69–76.

47. Vorozhevich, A. S. (2015), “Abuse of the right to register

48. a trademark. Legislation”, no. 8 (260), pp. 22–32.

49. Gavrikov, M. D. (2023), “Patent law and competitive

50. relations in business: challenges and opportunities”,

51. Bulletin of Federal Institute of Industrial Property, vol. 2,

52. no. 2 (4), pp. 32–36.