Among contemporary intellectual property debates, non-conventional trademarks (such as sounds, smells, tastes, shapes, and holograms) present unique challenges. They serve the primary function of trademarks to

distinguish the goods or services of one proprietor from those of another. For example, customers often associate the distinct shape of the Coca-Cola bottle with the beverage itself, the peculiar blue colour of Tiffany with the company, the very popular “Tudum” sound of Netflix with its brand identity. Such trademarks help the companies to enhance their brand recognition through unique sensory memory. The aim of this paper is to critically study the legal recognition, registration, and protection of non-conventional trademarks under Indian law, emphasizing both legal and practical difficulties by analyzing various examples of these marks. Extensive case law has been analyzed to elaborate the scope of infringement of these marks and the defenses available against such claims. Further, this paper highlights that a thorough understanding of the important role of non-conventional trademarks is essential for shaping today’s intellectual property landscape, offering valuable insights into both the challenges and opportunities they present for businesses. The absence of objective standards and the requirement for visual representation often complicate establishing distinctiveness, proving infringement, or demonstrating consumer association.

In this article, we carry out a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of the criminal policy in the field of cryptocurrency confiscation in Russia, the European Union, and the United States. The relevance of this research is determined by the rapid growth of crimes involving crypto assets (money laundering, cybercrimes, and drug trafficking) and the lack of effective mechanisms for their final confiscation and implementation in Russia, which undermines the efforts of law enforcement agencies. We aim to identify effective models of cryptocurrency confiscation based on a comparative analysis of legislation and practice in leading jurisdictions and, on this basis, to develop recommendations for improving the Russian legal framework. The methodology includes a comparative legal analysis of regulatory acts (Russian Criminal Procedure Code, EU Directive 2014/42/EU, US Code), a formal legal method, an analysis of judicial practice (Russia, USA), and doctrinal sources. The key findings can be summarized as follows: (1) the USA enjoys the most advanced system, where the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) actively uses private exchanges to convert confiscated assets; (2) the EU has established a strong legal framework (5/6AMLD, Directive 2014/42/EU); however, implementation practices here vary among member states, combining government-owned storage and outsourced sales through licensed platforms; (3) in the Russian Federation, despite the practice of seizure and arrest of crypto assets and legislative initiatives, the legal mechanism for their confiscation and sale is lacking, making court decisions unenforceable. In order to overcome this gap in Russia, it is necessary to urgently legislate cryptocurrency as property for the purposes of confiscation in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, grant the Federal Service for Judicial Enforcement of the Russian Federation the authority to sell through licensed platforms, as well as to develop expert potential. Our study extends the current knowledge by detailing the technological aspects of confiscation in the EU and the USA and proposes specific ways to modernize the criminal policy of the Russian Federation.

Prior to the advent of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, digitalization of administrative court proceedings was not a prominent priority in Russia. However, subsequent to the emergence of this global health crisis, a series of unprecedented modifications were initiated. The regulation of administrative proceedings remains distinct from other procedural rules with regard to the implementation of digital technologies. For instance, admission to remote participation (web conferencing) depends not only on technical capabilities of a court but also on whether a judge deems such interaction feasible. Another significant aspect of digitalization is the application of artificial intelligence, the implementation of which is still unclear in relation to existing procedural norms. This study aims to evaluate the current rules governing administrative judicial proceedings in Russia in terms of their readiness for digital transformation. To obtain valid results, the author compares these rules with those of foreign jurisdictions where the process of digitalization has commenced and achieved considerable success, with France serving as a notable example. Using the comparative legal method, the study establishes a conceptual framework, evaluates the legal regulations, and identifies options for addressing emerging legal issues. In Russia, the Code of Administrative Procedure imposes additional requirements for employing web conferencing. However, neither the law nor judicial practice has developed criteria for cases where personal presence is deemed necessary. This situation creates conditions for a violation of the right to a remedy, as it arbitrarily restricts litigants’ rights. Furthermore, if remote participation is not approved, disputing parties are left with the “old” set of legal instruments, depriving them of many advantages associated with remote access, which could reduce material and time costs. In contrast, France does not face this issue, as the idea of real cost reduction has been enshrined in law. Additionally, foreign experiences in implementing artificial intelligence are significant, as Russian domestic law does not adequately address this matter. Despite the long-standing availability of court decisions in Russia for public scrutiny, a significant market for services related to predictive justice remains non-existent, in contrast to the prevalent market dynamics observed in France. The article’s conclusion asserts the urgency of implementing artificial intelligence to prevent the privatization of justice administration by private entities. In the absence of such measures, the principles of judicial independence and impartiality may be compromised, resulting in a violation of constitutional guarantees.

Computer games have become an integral part of leisure activities for millions of people around the world. At the same time, the desire of players to gain a competitive advantage and the will to achieve immediate results often encourage the users to employ cheats, i.e., software tools enabling victories to be achieved dishonestly. The spread of cheats undermines the principles of fair play and creates unequal conditions for users. This, in turn, leads to a decrease in the gaming audience and, as a result, entails losses for publishers. In addition, cheats often infringe on the exclusive rights of copyright holders. In this regard, the legal issues of cheats, especially in the context of protecting the copyrights of video game copyright holders, represent a relevant research direction. This study aims to characterize cheats and anti-cheat technologies from the legal point of view, to determine their conformity with the provisions of copyright laws and with user agreements, to establish the type of responsibility of the creators of cheats, as well as to identify whether cheats are always deemed unacceptable from the legal point of view. The research was conducted using the methods of formal legal and comparative legal analysis. The former was used to assess the scope of copyright protection of video games and to discuss the capacity of individual norms to cover cheats. The latter was used to compare norms concerning technological means of copyright protection, the scope of copyright protection of video games, etc. As a result, several legal qualifications of cheats (from the point of view of criminal and civil law) were proposed. It was concluded that most modern online game cheats violate the exclusive rights of the authors as well as the provisions of user agreements. In this regard, there is a growing demand for anti-cheating technologies, which are in essence technological means of copyright protection, and in some jurisdictions, the very fact of their circumvention may result in liability.

What сonstitutes “use” under Copyright Law? Does the exclusive right of the copyright holder encompass any interaction with a protected work? This article explores the legal dimensions of training artificial intelligence (AI) based on works protected by copyright and related rights. The aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive legal analysis of AI training based on protected subject matter, focusing on the interpretation of key terms such as “use”, “reproduction”, and the legal qualification of activities such as text and data mining, within both Russian and foreign legal systems. The article examines the relevant statutory exceptions and limitations provided under EU, U.S., and Japanese law, illustrating divergent models of legal balance between the interests of AI developers and copyright holders. Methodologically, the research adopts an interdisciplinary approach, combining a technical description of neural network training algorithms with doctrinal and comparative legal analysis of regulatory approaches to AI training and text and data mining across jurisdictions. During the editing and proofreading stages, ChatGPT was used to improve clarity and coherence. However, all ideas, reasoning, examples, and conclusions are entirely the author’s own and were not generated by AI. The article further engages with normative and policy-based arguments for and against permitting AI systems to train freely based on copyrighted content. As a result of the analysis, the author concludes that the act of training an AI model, in itself, does not constitute “use” of a work within the meaning of Article 1270 of the Russian Civil Code. This is because such training does not involve reproduction of the protected expression of the work, nor does it entail perceptible access by a human or functional exploitation of the work (i.e., expressive use). Nevertheless, it is advisable for the legal system to establish exceptions which allow the creation of temporary copies of works without the right holder’s consent, when such copying is necessary for legitimate text and data mining purposes. Additionally, the law should provide mechanisms which enable the use of data that is otherwise restricted for training, without requiring individual negotiations with every rights holder. An exception to this rule should apply to databases which have been specifically curated, structured, and prepared by rights holders for the purpose of AI training.

The modern order requires the development of information technologies, artificial intelligence technologies and high-quality digitalization of various spheres of society. The importance and necessity of systematic and effective support for developers of various forms of innovative technologies is already recognized worldwide: various measures are being created to support innovative companies. Foreign countries actively support the creation of venture funds. This study examines key challenges in the legal regulation of venture investment in Russia using recent statistical data. The authors identify systemic shortcomings in current legislation and substantiate the need for comprehensive reforms, including revisions to the regulatory framework, implementation of substantive investor protections, and development of incentive mechanisms. The proposed measures aim to establish a sustainable venture financing ecosystem in the Russian Federation.