The international response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been, at least by those opposing the war, to ostracise Russia from the world order.

The terrible human suffering seen in Ukraine puts IP low down the list of priorities, but it is incredible to see how swiftly Russia’s bloodthirsty campaign has resulted in economic sanctions that have cored a hole where the world’s 11th largest economy used to be.

Multinational organisations such as the EU Intellectual Property Office and many national IP offices, led by the US, have ceased all cooperation with Russia’s IP office, Rospatent (see this useful list from the International Trademark Association).

Combined with international blocks on payments made to and from Russia’s banks, this has erected unprecedented barriers preventing foreigners from accessing, leveraging or monetising IP in the country. The exodus of many international brands is also draining the country of know-how.

Driving the country further apart, desperate new edicts by Russia’s political leaders have suspended the IP of rightsowners from ‘unfriendly countries’, as we explore in this issue (page 5).

Barring US-blocked countries such as North Korea and Iran, we are in uncharted territory here. The next test for the world’s IP organisations will be deciding if, and under what circumstances, the sanctions will be rolled back.

Let us hope for our Ukrainian community that IP leaders maintain their resolve for the long-term, if necessary.

Elsewhere in this first issue of the year, we feature the historic election of Justice Jackson to the Supreme Court (page 11), where one of her first major cases could be Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith (page 8)—an examination of fair use that will have implications for not just creators, but internet users, too.

With analysis of H&M v Unicolors (page 12), Hermés taking on an NFT ‘artist’ (page 13), and an eye-opening personal account of neurodiversity (page 15), this WIPR issue is bursting with essential stories.

I hope you enjoy.