Practice areas

Industries

Site Search

All publications

20 July 2026

How the IP Court’s New Approach Saves Famous Foreign Trademarks from Non-Use Cancellation in Russia

15 min.

Author of the article

In 2025, the Intellectual Property Court considered more than 500 non-use trademark cancellation actions — 45% of the claims were allowed.

This poses a risk for trademark owners: if a trademark is not used, its protection may be terminated. The brands of foreign companies that left Russia or scaled back their market activity after 2022 are particularly vulnerable. We explain how trademark non-use disputes are handled, how the Intellectual Property Court’s practice has changed, and what plaintiffs and rights holders should consider.

Article Contents

How a Trademark Non-Use Dispute Works

How the IP Court Has Changed Its Approach to Trademark Non-Use Cancellation Claims

When a Non-use Claim Shall be Deemed an Abuse of Right

What Plaintiffs Need to Consider

What Rights Holders Need to Consider

How Lawyers Assist in Defending a Position in a Dispute

How a Trademark Non-Use Dispute Works

Once a rights holder obtains an exclusive right to a trademark, the obligation to use it in the commercial turnover as a condition for maintaining this IP right arises. If a trademark remains unused for a long time, its protection should not prevent other companies from registering or using similar trademarks.

To regulate this issue, the legislator has developed a special mechanism: early termination of trademark protection. If a trademark has not been used for three years, any interested party has the right to send a pre-trial letter to the trademark owner and then file a lawsuit with the Intellectual Property Court (the IP Court).

In the dispute, the plaintiff must prove its legitimate interest by providing documentary evidence showing why the disputed trademark interferes with its business activity to use its own mark. For example, the plaintiff may already be operating under a similar designation, or may simply be planning to do so or may have filed a trademark application for registration or be preparing to launch a product on the market.

The trademark owner’s task is to prove that its trademark was used during the disputed period either directly by itself or by other parties under its control. For example, goods were sold, services were provided, advertising campaigns promoting the branded goods were launched, or other actions, confirming the introduction of the goods and services into the commercial turnover, were performed.

The three-year period for proving use is calculated retroactively from the sending date of the pre-trial letter. Typically, such a dispute boils down to addressing two fundamental questions: whether the plaintiff has a legal standing in the mark and whether the trademark owner used the mark during the challenged period. If the plaintiff’s legitimate interest is established and the defendant has no evidence of use or the evidence is insufficient, there is a high risk that trademark protection will be terminated. In cases involving famous brands, however, the IP Court has started to consider such disputes applying a more comprehensive set of criteria.

How the IP Court Has Changed Its Approach to Trademark Non-Use Cancellation Claims

Disputes surrounding famous brands that have left the Russian market or reduced their activity due to the geopolitical situation prompted this new judicial approach. March 2025 marked the end of the three-year statutory period following the departure of many foreign companies, after which any interested party can demand early termination of trademark protection due to non-use. Plaintiffs began to be guided by simple practical considerations: a successful (for them) non-use claim could free up a reputable trademark for their own registration and use.

One illustrative example is a series of disputes involving Multigoods Production Limited, which in 2024 filed more than twenty lawsuits seeking non-use cancellation of famous trademarks, including Nokia, Victoria’s Secret, Hugo Boss, Amazon, and Bershka. The plaintiff substantiated its interest with a standard set of evidence: applications to register a similar mark, cooperation agreements, and documents confirming commercial activity. Under a standard approach, the IP Court might have accepted such evidence as sufficient proof of the plaintiff’s legal standing. However, in Case No. SIP-802/2024 v. Nokia Corporation, the IP Court, taking into account the reputation of the challenged Nokia-series trademarks, considered the non-use dispute from a broader perspective: it applied comprehensive criteria to assess the plaintiff’s interest and ultimately qualified it as malicious.

The court established that Multigoods’ real intent was aimed to use and register the “NOKIA” designation — which is widely known to Russian consumers — despite the lack of connection between this designation and the plaintiff or its related entities. In addition, Rospatent (the Russian PTO) also refused to register a similar designation by the company due to the risk of misleading consumers and causing confusion with Nokia Corporation’s trademarks. The defendant's position was bolstered by a sociological survey showing that Russian consumers exclusively associated the "NOKIA" designation with the Finnish trademark owner. This was a key argument for the court: the dispute involved a widely known global brand with a strong reputation and a century-long history.

Similar non-use cases considered by the Intellectual Property Court show that, in disputes involving famous brands, the court has progressed beyond a purely formal approach to assessing the plaintiff’s legal standing. The Intellectual Property Court has introduced a new term — “a sham interest” — and has also begun to assess the plaintiff’s real ability to use the mark legally in the future, as well as its motives for choosing a reputable brand when analyzing the plaintiff’s intention.

It is important to distinguish between a “widely known” trademark and a “well-known” trademark. The latter refers to an official status granted by Rospatent, which lists the trademark in the special register of well-known trademarks of the Russian Federation. A widely known brand may not enjoy this official status, but may still be recognizable to consumers. For the IP Court, such recognition is substantiated by the brand’s history, information on its value and market presence, global rankings, publications, advertising materials, and sociological surveys. The latter often play a key role in proving the brand’s level of awareness among Russian consumers.

Currently, the Intellectual Property Court is considering several dozen non-use claims filed by Russian entrepreneurs against widely-known foreign brands in the apparel and leather goods sectors, and in resolving them, the IP Court is expected to apply these newly developed legal approaches to assessing the plaintiff’s legal standing.
This recent case law demonstrates that the IP Court does not allow the mechanism of early termination of trademark legal protection to be used against reputable brands contrary to the legislator’s will, applying the provisions of Article 10 of the Civil Code in situations “where strict adherence to the letter of the law violates the spirit of the law and an act of bad faith is committed through seemingly legitimate actions.”

When a Non-use Claim Shall be Deemed an Abuse of Right

The plaintiff’s claims must be based on a real business purpose. The plaintiff must act in good faith. A company has the right to seek early cancellation of a trademark registration on non-use basis, provided that trademark prevents it from developing its own brand, bringing a product to the market, or registering its own mark for similar goods and services.

Risks arise when the choice of a trademark is primarily motivated by wide awareness of another party’s brand. The court will examine why the plaintiff chose this particular designation for use, how it relates to its business, whether it participated in the brand’s development, and whether it was a partner, distributor, or other participant on the relevant market.

A standard set of documents may not suffice to confirm the plaintiff’s legal standing. An application for trademark registration, contracts with counterparties, and evidence confirming the production or sale of goods may support the plaintiff’s formal interest, but they do not always confirm its real intention and/or good faith. In case the circumstances suggest an attempt to acquire a widely-known mark by exploiting another brand’s reputation, the court may qualify such plaintiff’s interest to be malicious. Indeed, by virtue of the general principle of dispositivity of civil law, a business entity has the right to choose any designation to mark its goods or services. However, if doubts arise regarding the bona fides associated with the choice of a means of individualization, the entity must justify its choice to enable the court to evaluate its reasoning. The IP Court has tended to apply this approach since 2025 when considering claims of this category involving widely-known brands.

A striking example is the ZANUSSI case (No. SIP-423/2024). The plaintiff sought early termination of legal protection for the trademarks of the well-known manufacturer of household appliances. The court of first instance did not reveal evidence of abuse of rights by the plaintiff. The Presidium of the IP Court assessed the circumstances in a different manner: it took into account the brand’s famous nature, the lack of a convincing explanation regarding the choice of such a designation by the plaintiff, and concluded that the plaintiff’s actions were aimed to obtain an unjustified advantage by exploiting the reputation of the widely-known brand. As a result, the plaintiff’s actions were qualified as an abuse of a right.

Rospatent’s decisions are also of additional weight. If the local PTO has already refused to register a similar designation on the grounds that it could mislead consumers, this conclusion can be used in court. It helps to demonstrate that the plaintiff is attempting to terminate the protection of a trademark that consumers already associate with another rights holder.

In such cases, there is a high likelihood that the court will apply Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which prohibits an abuse of rights and Article 10-bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. If the court finds that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith, it may dismiss the claim on this ground alone.

What Plaintiffs Need to Consider

The IP Court’s new approach does not block companies from going to court. A plaintiff may still seek early termination of a trademark registration on non-use basis if an unused mark hinders the registration of its own mark or the development of a project in a related field.

Before initiating a non-use dispute, it is important to assess the purpose of the claim. If a company has no connection to the brand and cannot reasonably justify its choice of the famous designation, the lawsuit becomes risky. In such a situation, it is advisable to develop its own brand rather than to attempt to acquire a trademark with someone else’s reputation. Before filing a non-use trademark cancellation action, it is worth researching the market to establish whether the mark is in use, the level of its awareness to the consumer public, which company it is associated with, as well as assessing the rights holder’s ratings, history of presence in Russia, and other evidence of reputation. This analysis helps to assess the prospects of the dispute in advance and to understand what arguments the defendant might use in court.

Some of these disputes can be resolved at the pre-trial stage. At this stage, the parties can discuss a settlement agreement, a letter of consent for registration of a confusingly similar trademark, a coexistence agreement, or another option. If an agreement cannot be reached, the plaintiff will have a better understanding of the weaknesses in its position, the grounds for termination of the trademark’s legal protection, and the potential risks.

Receive the latest news on changes in Russian legislation

What Rights Holders Need to Consider

The IP Court’s new approach expands the defensive options in non-use disputes for the owners of widely-known trademarks. If a company lacks sufficient evidence of the challenged trademark’s use within the last three-year period, its position can be relied on the brand’s reputation and its wide awareness.

It is highly advisable to prepare a robust defense against a non-use claim in two directions. First, collect evidence of use: sales, deliveries, advertising, documents regarding the introduction of branded goods into the commercial turnover, and other materials covering the challenged period. Second, work to confirm the wide awareness of the challenged trademark and the plaintiff’s bad faith.

The brand’s reputation can be substantiated by its market history, ratings, media coverage, advertising materials, sales data, promotional activities, market share, and the results of sociological surveys or market research. The reputation of a widely-known brand may persist even after it is no longer available for purchase as consumers continue to recognize the trademark and associate it exclusively with the legitimate owner company.

A sociological survey can serve as key evidence. It reveals the brand’s level of awareness, identifies which company consumers associate the trademark with, and assesses the likelihood of confusion if the mark is used by another party. This is particularly important for famous brands: brand awareness can remain for years, even if the company has reduced or ceased its business operations in Russia.

It is also crucial to analyze the plaintiff’s activities: when the company was founded, what it does, why it chose this particular designation, and whether it has any prior connection to the brand, the trademark owner, or the relevant market. If the plaintiff was not a partner or did not participate in the brand’s development but is attempting to obtain a widely-known mark, this may confirm its bad faith.

Favorable Rospatent’s decisions can also be helpful. If the local PTO has refused registration of a similar trademark application by the plaintiff on the grounds of confusion between the marks and/or misleading ability grounds, such conclusion should be used in court. It helps to prove that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith by continuing to insist on early termination of trademark protection, which does not remove the legal obstacles to registering the brand in its name, since the absolute grounds for refusal will remain even in case of non-use cancellation of the prior trademarks.

Upon receiving of a pre-trial letter or a non-use claim, one should assess the evidence of the trademark’s use, the brand’s reputation, and the plaintiff’s intentions. If the trademark owner provides convincing evidence of its brand’s wide awareness with the consumers, its exclusive association with the owner company, and supports the risk of misleading consumers, this will strengthen its legal position and help to protect the trademark.

How Lawyers Assist in Defending a Position in a Dispute

Trademark non-use cancellation disputes have become more complex. In cases involving the widely-known brands, it is necessary to take into account the latest case law of the Russian IP Court and the Supreme Court, Rospatent’s position, the level of the mark’s awareness, the risk of confusion among local consumers, and the plaintiff’s possible bad-faith.

This is particularly important for foreign trademark owners which have left the Russian market or reduced their presence there. Such companies may lack sufficient evidence to prove use of the trademark over the last three years or may have no such evidence at all. However, the current judicial practice envisages a broader defense approach: proving the plaintiff’s bad faith through the brand’s long history, its reputation in the market, and the strong association between the trademark and a specific company.

Experienced intellectual property attorneys could assist the legitimate trademark owners to quickly determine the basis for a defense, to check and to guide the collection of evidence of the trademarks’ use, to collect materials regarding the brand’s reputation, Rospatent’s decisions on relevant marks, to organize a sociological survey, and to assess the plaintiff’s behavior. It is also worth checking whether the challenged trademark or its elements are independently protected by copyright: the existence of copyright protection may help preventing the cancellation of a trademark registration, in accordance with the legal position set forth in Ruling No. 300-ES25-2343 of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 6, 2025, in Case No. SIP-1077/2023.

The main risk of a self-defense route is adopting an overly narrow position. The right holder may focus solely on sales during the challenged period and overlook arguments regarding the brand’s reputation, the risk of confusion, the plaintiff’s bad faith, or Rospatent’s findings. As a result, the court may see only part of the picture.

Therefore, upon receiving of a pre-trial letter or a trademark non-use cancellation action, it is best practice to seek advice immediately from specialized local attorneys. Such an approach will allow you to assess the actual risks, to choose a proper defense strategy, and often to keep the brand, even if there is insufficient evidence of the trademark’s use within the challenged three-year period.

<br>

Subscribe to
legal alerts

Be aware of latest changes in Russian
legislation with our legal alerts

I consent to the processing of my personal data for the purpose of receiving news and information mailouts.

Operator: Moscow branch of Melling, Voitishkin & Partners FZ LLC.

List of personal information: Full name, place of work and position, email, telephone number and areas of professional interest.

The operator may transfer personal data to the St Petersburg branch of Melling, Voitishkin & Partners FZ LLC (190031, Russia, St Petersburg, Sennoy Inner-city Municipal District, 4 Grivtsova pereulok, Liter A).

For more details see the Privacy Policy.

Information
for the media

The contact person

Uliana Malenskaya

E-mail

Uliana.Malenskaya@mv.legal