VANLIN v. WanLee: Phonetic Similarity as a Decisive Ground for Trademark Refusal

Introduction

Trademark disputes in the fashion sector remain one of the most strictly formalized areas of Rospatent practice. The VANLIN case illustrates that even minor visual differences and the absence of semantic meaning do not overcome phonetic similarity where marks are used for homogeneous goods.

The decision of the Chamber for Patent Disputes (CPP) issued in early 2026 confirms a consistent approach: priority is given to the perception of the mark by the average Russian consumer, rather than to the applicant's commercial success or branding intentions.

Background of the Case

The word mark VANLIN was filed for registration under Application No. 2024823012 with a priority date of 25 October 2024 in respect of goods in Class 25 of the Nice Classification (clothing, footwear, headgear, in an extensive list).

By decision dated 25 August 2025, Rospatent refused registration based on Article 1483(6) of the Russian Civil Code, citing similarity to the earlier trademark WanLee, protected in Russia under International Registration No. 1352012 with priority from 17 March 2017. The right holder is the Turkish company WANLEEINVEST ULUSLARARASI STRATEJIK IS GELISTIRME YONETIM VE DANISMANLIK HIZMETLERI LIMITED SIRKETI.

Applicant's Arguments

In its objection, the applicant argued that:

• the designations VANLIN and WanLee are not confusingly similar in phonetic, graphic, or semantic terms;
• the applied-for mark has high distinctiveness and is associated exclusively with the applicant;
• goods marketed under the VANLIN brand are well known and commercially successful;
• Rospatent practice includes registrations of comparable designations.

On this basis, the applicant requested that Rospatent's refusal be overturned and the mark registered for all claimed goods in Class 25.

Legal Assessment by the Chamber for Patent Disputes

The Chamber rejected the applicant's arguments and upheld the refusal, providing a detailed legal analysis.

1. Applicable Legal Framework

The assessment was conducted under Article 1483(6)(2) of the Civil Code, which prohibits registration of designations that are identical or confusingly similar to earlier trademarks protected in Russia for homogeneous goods.

The Chamber applied Rules 41-45 of the Trademark Examination Rules (Order No. 482), which require a cumulative assessment of phonetic, visual, and semantic similarity.

2. Phonetic Similarity as the Dominant Factor

The Chamber found that VANLIN and WanLee are phonetically similar to a confusing degree because:

• they are pronounced similarly, particularly in rapid or casual speech;
• the initial sounds [v] and [w] are frequently not distinguished by Russian-speaking consumers and are commonly pronounced as [v];
• the difference created by the final consonant "-n" in VANLIN is often imperceptible in oral use.

As a result, the designations are associated with each other as a whole, notwithstanding minor differences, which meets the test for likelihood of confusion.

3. Visual and Semantic Differences Are Insufficient

The Chamber emphasized that:

• the stylized font used in the WanLee trademark does not alter its letter composition or phonetic perception;
• the word "VANLIN" has no semantic meaning, eliminating any possibility of differentiation based on concept;
• minor graphic distinctions cannot neutralize phonetic similarity from the consumer's perspective.

4. Homogeneity of Goods in Class 25

All goods covered by the VANLIN application and the earlier WanLee registration fall within the same generic category of "clothing, footwear, headgear", share the same purpose, consumer audience, and distribution channels.

This homogeneity significantly increases the likelihood of confusion, in line with Rule 45 of the Examination Rules.

5. Commercial Recognition Is Legally Irrelevant

The Chamber expressly stated that within the scope of Article 1483(6):

• actual use of the designation,
• market recognition,
• sales volumes and advertising activity

are not taken into account. The assessment is limited to the applied-for designation, the earlier trademark, and the listed goods.

Final Decision

The Chamber for Patent Disputes concluded that the VANLIN designation is confusingly similar to the earlier WanLee trademark in relation to homogeneous goods and therefore upheld Rospatent's refusal of 25 August 2025, dismissing the objection in full.

Key Takeaways by IPPRO

• Phonetics prevails. In the fashion industry, phonetic similarity may outweigh visual differences.
• One-letter differences rarely suffice. Minor spelling variations do not prevent refusal if overall pronunciation is similar.
• Market success is not a legal defense. Commercial popularity does not cure a conflict with an earlier trademark.
• Class 25 is high-risk. Due to the mass-market nature of clothing and footwear, confusion is assessed particularly strictly.

Conclusion

The VANLIN case confirms that brand selection for clothing and footwear requires a deep phonetic clearance analysis, specifically tailored to Russian-language perception. Visual originality alone does not guarantee registrability if the mark sounds like an existing trademark.