What’s new in Russia’s turbulent IP landscape?

International companies with trademarks registered in Russia face challenges in maintaining their rights. We examine the latest developments and how trademark holders can respond.

Despite strict sanctions against Russia and its own retaliatory measures, the country’s intellectual property system continues to function. As Russia has not declared a state of war, force majeure rules do not apply. Rospatent and the Russian IP courts are still processing applications, renewals and disputes.

Trademark filings in Russia have in fact surged by an estimated 30% between 2021 and 2024, driven mainly by Russian applicants. This shift to domestic filings reveals something about the broader trend affecting the country’s IP landscape.

“Of the top 10 trademark filers in Russia, seven are local entities. The concern is that three of them are known as ‘trademark squatters’ – companies that file trademarks identical to those of foreign rights holders. These entities then offer to sell their applications, either to the rightful owner or to another party,” explains Riikka Palmos, Director of Trademark Department at Papula-Nevinpat.

As a countermeasure to sanctions, Russia has taken certain legal and administrative steps that complicate trademark protection for foreign companies. Court and patent office fees have risen, for example, while requirements for original and notarized documents have become stricter. This creates hurdles for foreign applicants, as international mail delivery can be challenging.

“The most concerning countermeasure is a draft bill introduced by a Russian individual who aims to cancel IP rights for entities from ‘unfriendly’ countries,” says Palmos. “The bill received a preliminary rejection from the Duma’s legal department, citing contradictions with Russian legislation and international agreements. However, the matter remains under consideration and we are closely monitoring it.”

Court challenges on the rise

While Rospatent and the Russian IP courts continue to operate within legal frameworks, more entities are filing trademark applications identical to or confusingly similar to foreign brands.

Another concerning trend is the registration of foreign trademarks in different product categories to bypass infringement claims. Many resellers and former business partners continue to use trademarks of companies that have exited Russia, despite the termination of agreements. Others actively seek to profit from the situation through various improper actions.

“The rise in trademark applications has led to a surge in letters of consent and compensation requests,” says Palmos. “Whereas compensation claims for letters of consent to register a trademark application used to be between USD 500 and USD 2 000, claims from local companies now often reach tens of thousands of dollars.”

Several high-profile brands – including Nokia, Sega and Starbucks – currently face cancellation actions due to non-use. Swedish telecommunications giant Ericsson recently lost its registration in Class 11, though its main business-related classes remain intact. Vehicle manufacturer Polestar in fact lost its key registrations in Class 12.

In a high-profile case between Carlsberg and Baltika Brewery, the Danish company’s exit from Russia resulted in the termination of its licensing agreement with Baltika. The local brewery challenged this termination in the IP Court, which ultimately ruled in its favour. The court overturned the termination and upheld the validity of the licenses, allowing Baltika to continue manufacturing beer under the Carlsberg brand. This took place despite Carlsberg’s attempted termination of the agreement.

Under these extenuating circumstances, it’s more important than ever to comply with Russia’s trademark use requirements.

Trademarks must be actively used within three years of registration or within three years prior to a cancellation action due to non-use. Sanctions cannot be cited as justification for non-use. Parallel imports do not count as proof of use, unless the rights holder can show documentation proving they supplied those goods to Russia.

“Many foreign trademarks have been challenged due to non-use,” says Palmos. “To defend their rights, trademark holders must provide clear evidence of actual use in Russia. On the other hand, the claimant must prove their legitimate interest in the cancellation of the registration. An obligatory warning letter stage allows for resolution before the case proceeds to court.”

Strategies for protecting rights

Several options are available to preserve trademark rights for foreign companies that have withdrawn from the Russian market.

One option is licensing. But to be enforceable against third parties, trademark licenses must be registered with Rospatent. Another approach is through trademark transfers, where rights are assigned to a related entity or local partner for temporary protection. Re-filing of trademarks has also proven to be an effective strategy, as Russian authorities have generally taken a liberal stance toward this.

“Re-filing is a viable option for maintaining rights,” Palmos explains. “However, identical trademarks cannot be re-registered, even by the same owner. Minor modifications – such as changing the font, adding words or slightly altering the mark – can improve the chances of approval.”

Amending the specification of goods can also help to distinguish a refiled trademark from an existing one. For example, ‘computers’ can be specified as ‘laptops, desktops, tablets and workstations’, while ‘jackets’ can be detailed as ‘denim jackets, rainproof jackets and fleece jackets’.

It’s essential for rights holders to keep an eye on the Russian market and act quickly against unauthorized trademark use. Trademark holders should not ignore inquiries from Russian companies. Even if there is no intention to engage, all communication should be reviewed carefully to avoid potential legal issues. Documenting any infringement makes it easier to act when needed.

“If you see unauthorized use, then take photos, purchase the product and keep records of your actions,” Palmos recommends. “Many infringers assume that companies no longer in Russia have stopped monitoring their trademarks, so showing that rights are still enforced can be an effective deterrent.”

“We’ve sent numerous cease-and-desist letters to department stores and smaller retailers, reminding them of their obligations. In the vast majority of cases, these letters have worked in favour of the trademark holder,” says Palmos.

You can view the IP webinar on this topic here.