Court dismisses Apteka Farma’s claim over alleged franchise copying

The Moscow Region Commercial Court has dismissed a claim brought by Ryazan-based pharmacy chain Apteka Farma against Apteka LLC, a company based in the Moscow region, over alleged copying of its franchise. The claimant sought RUB 1 million in compensation and an injunction prohibiting the use of the franchise name, website and materials. As Forbes reported on 15 October 2026, the court found no evidence that the claimant’s texts had been adapted. For Russia’s franchising sector, the case illustrates the distinction between a similar business concept and infringement of rights in specific materials.

What prompted the dispute

Farmika, the company that operates the Apteka Farma chain, filed its claim in May 2025. The defendant is associated with the Sovetskaya Apteka pharmacy chain. The claimant alleged that its competitor had copied its ‘First Management Franchise’ project in full.

According to New Retail, citing Forbes, the company developed its franchise in 2023. The offer involved no initial franchise fee and included use of the brand, support with pricing and product ranges, and favourable supply terms. In 2024, the company discovered an offer called ‘Apteka Pharma’, which it considered similar to its own concept.

The claim therefore went beyond financial compensation. The claimant also sought to prohibit use of the franchise name, website and materials. However, the allegation of wholesale copying was the claimant’s position, not a fact established by the court: the ruling went against it.

The central issue was whether the defendant had used the claimant’s protected materials. The court did not consider the mere presence of a similar offer on the market sufficient evidence of infringement of exclusive rights. This distinction determined the outcome.

What the expert assessment and court found

A court-appointed expert assessment compared the project descriptions on the parties’ websites. On that basis, the court concluded that the material on the defendant’s website was not an adaptation of the text published on the claimant’s website. A request for a further expert assessment was refused.

The judgment noted that similarity between franchise projects does not, in itself, prove that they are identical. In the court’s view, the two companies’ offers shared a common idea. The judge cited Article 1259(5) of the Russian Civil Code, under which copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, principles, methods, processes or systems.

Establishing infringement requires proof that a specific work, or part of it, has been used, either in its original form or as an adaptation. The court found no such evidence in this case. Similarities in the terms and overall structure of the franchise offer were therefore insufficient to support the RUB 1 million claim.

It is important to read this conclusion within the scope of the dispute. The court assessed the claims brought and the evidence of use of the materials, not the commercial appeal of the two offers. Nor does the ruling mean that any text or other franchise element may be freely copied: the question is precisely which protected material has been used and whether infringement of the rights in it has been proved.

Why the case matters to the franchising sector

According to Maria Bogdanova, senior partner at law firm Ant Attorneys, whose comments were reported by Forbes, franchise copying is a relevant issue in retail, food service, pharmacies and services. Yet claims over franchise plagiarism remain rare in the Russian market.

Experts link the difficulty of such proceedings to identifying what is protected. A franchise offer may combine a brand, text, images, software and organisational approaches. Similarity between the offers as a whole does not, however, establish which exclusive rights have been infringed. A legal assessment requires a specific protected asset to be identified.

As the Forbes article notes, claimants are more likely to succeed where a dispute concerns clearly defined protected assets: a trade mark, copyright in original texts, or know-how protected under a trade secrecy regime. Photographs and software code are also cited as materials whose copying may establish infringement.

The Apteka Farma case should therefore not be interpreted as a change to franchising rules or the introduction of a new prohibition. Its significance for the sector lies in its clear application of the distinction between a general business idea and the protected form in which it is expressed. A business model and the specific text describing that model require different legal assessments.

What franchise owners should consider

For franchisors, the practical starting point when assessing possible copying is to draw up a list of specific assets. Rather than making a general assertion that ‘the franchise has been copied’, they should identify what is at issue: a name and trade mark, original text, photographs, software code or know-how. They then need to assess the evidence that those particular assets have been used.

For prospective franchisees, the lesson is different: similar terms offered by two franchises do not, on their own, establish either copying or that the projects are identical. The absence of an initial franchise fee, support with product ranges or assistance with supplies describe the offer, but are no substitute for checking the documentation and the scope of the rights being acquired.

Practical takeaway: focus protection on specific materials and rights, and base claims against competitors on evidence of their use. The Apteka Farma case shows why similarity between business concepts alone is not enough to secure compensation.