Detailed Legal Analysis and Rebuttal of Bloomberg's Claims on Alleged "Trademark Poaching" in Russia

Periodic statements in foreign media regarding purported "systemic risks" for international brands in Russia are often based on outdated assumptions about the Russian intellectual property protection system. Assertions similar to those in Bloomberg's publication of 13 November 2025 ("Russian Trademark Poachers Target Brands Like Armani and Amazon") do not reflect the actual state of legal practice; instead, they rely on narratives rooted in the mythology of the 1990s. Their repetition distorts the understanding of the nature of the legal system and is capable of misleading international businesses.

In reality, the contemporary Russian IP system is characterized by a high degree of regulatory certainty and stable administrative and judicial practice, rendering the narrative presented in the article not only oversimplified, but legally inaccurate.

1. The Legal Nature of Early Termination: What Bloomberg Fails to Acknowledge

The article's core assertion—that trademarks are being "poached" by third parties—overlooks a fundamental legal mechanism: early termination of trademark protection for non-use (Article 1486 of the Russian Civil Code). This mechanism is a statutory tool designed to maintain the integrity and good faith of commercial turnover.

Under the law, protection is terminated only when all of the following conditions are met:

– absence of use within the territory of the Russian Federation for three consecutive years;

– filing of a petition by an interested party;

– examination of the case by Rospatent within a formalized administrative procedure;

– possibility to challenge the decision before the Intellectual Property Court.

Each element of the procedure involves evidentiary assessment, analysis of comparability of goods and services, evaluation of the nature and sufficiency of use, examination of the applicant's legal standing and the good-faith nature of its interest. A decision is not rendered automatically; it is based on concrete evidence — shipping documents, advertising materials, commercial contracts, distributor reports, warehouse records, and other materials meeting the requirements of the doctrine of "genuine use."

Accordingly, equating this mechanism with "poaching" is a substitution of legal concepts and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of trademark protection.

2. Responsibility of the Right Holder and the Principle of "Use It or Lose It"

Bloomberg's publication creates the impression of a foreign company unexpectedly losing its rights due to external circumstances. However, administrative practice demonstrates the opposite: the overwhelming majority of early termination cases arise from the right holder's lack of portfolio management.

Typical scenarios include:

– termination of activities by a local representative office or authorized consultant;

– withdrawal of the brand from the Russian market and cessation of commercial turnover;

– absence of systematic monitoring of conflicting designations;

– failure to comply with notifications from Rospatent or the courts;

– failure to collect and submit evidence of use in a timely manner.

The Russian system does not protect "unused" monopolies. This approach is consistent not only with national legislation but also with Russia's international obligations under the Paris Convention and TRIPS, where use of the mark is a recognized condition for maintaining protection.

A brand that is not present on the market and demonstrates no intention to maintain its portfolio loses its legal connection with the protected object. This principle is universal and applies in all developed legal systems.

3. Misrepresentation of Scale and Omission of Statistical Context

The figure cited by Bloomberg ("over 300 international companies") is presented as an indicator of systemic crisis. However, from a proper legal-statistical perspective, the following must be taken into account:

– the annual flow of trademark filings in Russia exceeds 100,000 applications;

– thousands of foreign companies annually file and maintain their rights;

– the majority of non-use proceedings either confirm the rights or terminate protection only for specific classes and only in cases of complete absence of evidence of use;

– the proportion of such cases relative to the total volume of protected marks is negligible.

Therefore, the phenomenon described is a normal legal process rather than a trend indicating systemic risk.

4. Improper Politicization of Technical Administrative Procedures

Particularly notable is the attempt to link the non-use mechanism to political developments. However:

– the early-termination mechanism has existed in Russia for decades;

– it is applied consistently to both foreign and domestic right holders;

– Rospatent and the IP Court regularly issue decisions in favor of foreign right holders when evidence of use is provided;

– the procedure is entirely apolitical and limited to the assessment of factual commercial turnover.

Conflating an administrative legal mechanism with political rhetoric distorts reality and misrepresents the legislative context.

5. Current State of the System: High Stability and Predictability

Contrary to suggestions of "chaos" or "regulatory risk," the trademark protection system in Russia today is characterized by:

– full digitalization of interactions with Rospatent;

– transparent substantive examination procedures;

– predictable jurisprudence of the IP Court and higher courts;

– institutional stability of the Chamber for Patent Disputes;

– a substantial body of published case law enabling strategic planning even in complex categories of marks.

The daily work performed by Russian IP-specialized firms with large international portfolios demonstrates that, when properly managed, the system presents no "exceptional risks." Hundreds of thousands of registered marks confirm the normal functioning of the system and the high level of trust among right holders.

← Back to Articles