Registration of the Chloé Trademark in the Russian Federation: Legal Framework, Scope of Protection and Enforcement Implications

1. Factual Background and Subject Matter of Legal Protection

The French fashion house Chloé has completed the state registration of its eponymous trademark in the Russian Federation. The trademark application was filed with the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) in July 2025 and successfully passed the statutory examination procedure.

Legal protection has been granted for the designation "Chloé" in respect of goods covered by five classes of the Nice Classification (NCL), namely Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25, encompassing the core product categories traditionally associated with the trademark owner's commercial activities, including perfumery, fashion apparel, accessories and jewelry.

2. Legal Basis for Granting Trademark Protection

The legal regime governing the registered trademark is established by Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in particular:

• Article 1477, which defines a trademark as a means of individualization of goods of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs;
• Article 1481, which stipulates that the exclusive right to a trademark is certified by a certificate issued by Rospatent;
• Article 1484, which determines the content of the exclusive right and enumerates permissible forms of trademark use;
• Article 1491, which regulates the term of validity of the exclusive right (ten years from the filing date) and provides for its unlimited renewal.

The exclusive right to the Chloé trademark is valid until 3 July 2035, with the trademark owner retaining the right to renew the registration for subsequent ten-year periods.

Learn more about trademark registration in the Russian Federation.

3. Substantive Examination and Trademark Registrability Criteria

The grant of legal protection to the Chloé designation indicates that, during the substantive examination, Rospatent established compliance with the registrability requirements set forth in Articles 1479 and 1483 of the Civil Code, including:

• the absence of identity or confusing similarity with earlier registered trademarks in respect of homogeneous goods;
• sufficient distinctiveness of the designation;
• absence of statutory grounds for refusal related to misleading consumers or infringement of third-party rights.

It should be noted that the Intellectual Property Court of the Russian Federation consistently emphasizes that, when assessing similarity of trademarks, decisive importance is attached to the perception of the relevant average consumer, rather than to a purely formal or linguistic analysis (see, inter alia, IP Court rulings in cases No. SIP-323/2021 and No. SIP-118/2022).

4. Scope of the Exclusive Right and Legal Consequences of Registration

Pursuant to Article 1484(1) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the trademark owner is granted the exclusive right to use the trademark in any manner not contrary to law, including, but not limited to:

• affixing the trademark to goods, packaging and labels;
• using the designation in advertising, commercial documentation and on websites;
• importing goods bearing the trademark into the territory of the Russian Federation;
• offering such goods for sale and commercial distribution.

Trademark registration creates a presumption of legality and priority of rights, which is of fundamental importance in disputes concerning:

• prohibition of use of confusingly similar designations;
• early termination of trademark protection granted to third parties;
• recovery of statutory compensation for trademark infringement under Article 1515 of the Civil Code.

Judicial practice proceeds from the principle that the very fact of state registration confirms the existence of a legally protected interest, while the burden of proving lawful use of a designation rests with the alleged infringer.

5. Protective Function of Registration and Anti-Counterfeiting Measures

From a practical enforcement perspective, trademark registration across several related Nice classes enables the formation of an extended zone of legal protection, which is particularly critical for luxury brands.

The Intellectual Property Court has repeatedly indicated that registrations in adjacent classes may be taken into account when assessing the homogeneity of goods and the likelihood of confusion (see, for example, cases No. SIP-481/2020 and No. SIP-77/2023).

Furthermore, the existence of a registered trademark constitutes a prerequisite for:

• inclusion of the trademark in the Customs Register of Intellectual Property Objects (CRIPO);
• application of customs measures aimed at suspending the release of counterfeit goods;
• effective cooperation with online marketplaces and other digital distribution platforms.

Our trademark enforcement services include customs registration and anti-counterfeiting strategies.

6. Broader Context: Renewed Activity of Foreign Right Holders in Russia

The registration of the Chloé trademark forms part of a broader trend observed in 2025, namely the renewed and intensified activity of foreign trademark owners in securing intellectual property rights in the Russian Federation.

In particular, the cosmetics group L'Oréal filed 31 trademark applications with Rospatent, several of which have already been registered (including CeraVe and Mixa), while applications for Maybelline, Nyx and Essie remain under substantive examination.

This practice demonstrates that, notwithstanding changes in commercial presence and distribution models, foreign companies continue to regard trademarks as key intangible assets requiring protection within the Russian jurisdiction.

7. Conclusion

The registration of the Chloé trademark in the Russian Federation constitutes a legally sound and strategically significant decision, aimed at:

• preserving trademark priority and continuity of legal protection;
• preventing bad-faith registrations and unauthorized use of similar designations;
• ensuring a solid evidentiary basis for potential administrative and judicial enforcement.

From the standpoint of trademark law doctrine, this case illustrates the enduring role of trademark registration as a core instrument for safeguarding brand value and confirms that state registration remains an indispensable element of a long-term intellectual property protection strategy.