Essence of the Dispute
The plaintiff company claimed that the rights holder — Hugo Boss AG (Germany) — does not use its brand in Russia, and therefore protection should be terminated.
The Hugo Boss trademark was registered in 2014, and the international registration extends to a number of countries, including Russia, the EU, USA, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, China, and other states. Protection has been extended until 2034.
In Russia, the registration covers several classes of goods — eyeglasses and sunglasses, writing instruments, notebooks, cosmetic products, bathroom accessories, tableware, and various related items.
Position of the IP Court
The Court found no grounds for revocation of protection. Despite the fact that Hugo Boss has suspended sales in Russia since March 2022, the Court, based on the case materials, deemed the evidence of non-use insufficient to terminate protection.
The Court also considered the specifics of international registration, the scale of the brand's presence in other markets, and materials regarding the rights holder's activities.
Mass Lawsuits by Multigoods
The Hugo Boss case became part of a series of lawsuits filed by Multigoods with the IP Court in 2024–2025 — a total of 20 lawsuits against well-known foreign rights holders.
Some claims were withdrawn, several lawsuits were returned at the acceptance stage.
Among the cases considered:
- Cancellation of seven Amazon Europe Core trademarks;
- Cancellation of the Nokia Solutions and Networks brand;
- Partial termination of protection for Bershka and Bershka marks;
- Partial cancellation of Victoria's Secret brands.
Certain cases — particularly regarding Michelin and Amazon Technologies — are still under consideration.
Context and Possible Consequences
Despite the suspension of sales in Russia, Hugo Boss assets were approved for sale to the Stockmann store chain. This circumstance could also have been taken into account as evidence of the brand's continued economic presence in the country.
The IP Court's decision in the Hugo Boss case confirms the Court's consistent approach:
- Termination of legal protection of an international trademark requires convincing evidence of actual non-use;
- Temporary reduction or suspension of commercial activity alone is not an automatic ground for revocation of protection;
- The international status of the brand and its business activity in the global market are taken into account by the Court when assessing the dispute.
Conclusion
For foreign rights holders, the Hugo Boss decision is important as confirmation that: even in conditions of reduced presence in the Russian market, courts continue to apply strict criteria to evidence of non-use.
For claimants, this is a signal that initiating mass lawsuits without sufficient evidentiary basis rarely leads to the desired result.
Related Materials
Additional case analysis and legal commentary on trademark protection in Russia:
P.S. Technically, we have not yet seen the decision in this case. However, a very similar decision has recently appeared concerning the same claimant. This suggests that the court's approach to such claims is becoming more systematic.
"At Multigoods, they certainly understand: growing and developing a brand on the level of Hugo Boss or Victoria's Secret is incomparably more difficult than filing a lawsuit for non-use of a trademark. Especially when it comes to international brands with established reputation and many years of presence in the global market.
One can also consider a conditionally 'conspiratorial' version. Perhaps the IP Court and Rospatent have information about the rights holder's potential plans to resume or transform activities in Russia — which means termination of protection could be premature. There is also a simpler option: the parties found themselves before experts who traditionally take a cautious approach to the fate of strong global brands and require maximally convincing evidence to apply such a harsh measure as revocation of protection.
Practice confirms: termination of trademark legal protection is an exceptional decision. And it is possible to achieve it only with a truly complete, consistent, and convincing evidentiary base."