On September 19, 2025, the 4th International Scientific and Practical Conference, Digital Technologies and Law, took place as part of the Kazan Digital Week 2025 International Forum. The Coordination Center for TLD .RU/.РФ and IP CLUB organized and conducted a section titled “Digital identifiers: Legal challenges.” The session was co-moderated by IP CLUB President Marina Rozhkova, Deputy Director for Legal Affairs of the Coordination Center Sergey Kopylov, and the Coordination Center’s Deputy Director of the Legal Department Natalya Kiseleva.
In her opening remarks, Marina Rozhkova emphasized that digital identifiers are gradually replacing traditional forms of identification – such as full names, tax identification numbers (TINs), and addresses – and have already firmly entered our lives. Participants examined various types of digital identification and shared examples from their own practices.
In her report titled “IP address: Legal qualification,” Coordination Center Legal Counsel Yekaterina Alymova noted that in Russian legal practice, an IP address is recognized solely as a technical identifier, and the only relevant case law confirms that it is not an object of civil rights. Conversely, foreign courts often classify IP addresses as personal data. According to the speaker, an IP address is inferior to a domain name as a legal identifier because it requires additional information to be linked to a specific individual.
In her report, Natalya Kiseleva addressed the issue of domain name inheritance. Russian case law is inconsistent: some courts include domains in the estate, while others do not. Foreign experience is also varied: in Germany and Estonia, domain inheritance is possible if the domain is recognized as property. Key challenges include determining the circle of heirs, the timeframe for exercising rights, and gaining access to administrator information.
Andrey Alekseychuk, an attorney at the St Petersburg law firm Diktum, delivered a report titled “Disputes over usernames: Specifics, analysis of major cases, and regulatory prospects.” He explained that a username is a unique user identifier but is not directly regulated by law. Depending on the situation, usernames may be subject to norms governing the right to a name, trademarks, or copyrights. Among the examples he cited was the dispute between Dodo Pizza and Telegram over the use of the @dodopizza username, where practices from domain disputes were applied by analogy. The expert suggested that courts will increasingly adopt approaches from domain practice over time, but the primary regulatory role will remain with the platforms.
Elena Ostanina, Head of the Department of Civil Law and Procedure at Chelyabinsk State University, in her report “Autonomy of will and public interest in the selection of digital identifiers for individuals,” noted that traditional identifiers like names or addresses are now insufficient. The state actively uses public law identifiers – passports, TINs, and social security numbers (SNILS). Meanwhile, in the digital sphere, email addresses or phone numbers have begun to play a key role. Although they lack formal status, they effectively serve as important identification tools.
Maria Pershonkova, Head of Dispute Resolution at Kosenkov & Suvorov, emphasized in her report that an ID is an internal technical identifier, part of an account, and is not an object of civil rights. Outside of a marketplace, a seller’s ID also may not be considered personal data. In practice, however, a seller’s ID is actively used in court as evidence of a contract or transaction.
According to IP CLUB Vice President Maria Samartseva, QR codes can be classified as digital identifiers but also create a range of legal risks: from personal data and consumer rights protection to issues of copyright infringement if protected content is distributed via a QR code. In certain cases, a QR code may even be considered an art object, such as the Starbucks QR code designed in the shape of a mermaid.
Ilya Titov, an associate at ADVANT Beiten, shared German practices related to protecting email addresses as commercial designations. He particularly noted that the secondary market for such addresses is effectively blocked by German email service operators based on contractual restrictions.
In conclusion, the session moderators, Marina Rozhkova and Sergey Kopylov, thanked the speakers for their insightful presentations. All speakers agreed that digital identifiers are becoming increasingly significant in modern law, yet their legal nature remains debatable and requires further consideration. A collective article based on the session’s outcomes is planned.
