Russia | Procedure for challenging a trademark: an overview of case law for 2026

A trademark is one of the key tools for protecting a business, as it allows a company to distinguish its goods, works, or services and prevent other market participants from using similar marks.
However, trademark registration alone does not preclude the possibility of subsequent challenges. In practice, disputes arise both because the mark did not initially meet the requirements for registrability and because of the trademark owner’s bad-faith conduct during the registration or use of the trademark.

An analysis of case law from 2026 shows that, when considering such disputes, courts base their decisions not only on the formal existence of a registration but also on the totality of the circumstances: who began using the mark and when, whether it had acquired a reputation prior to the priority date of the disputed mark, whether the rights holder had a genuine intention to use the mark in commercial activities, and whether the registration was intended to block a competitor or obtain unjustified advantages. At the same time, the mere fact of non-use of a trademark does not always indicate an abuse of rights—to reach such a conclusion, it is necessary to establish the purpose of acquiring the right, the subsequent conduct of the rights holder, and the impact of their actions on other market participants.

1. Procedure for Challenging a Trademark

Current legislation provides for several independent mechanisms to protect individuals whose rights or legitimate interests are affected by the registration of another party’s trademark.

1.1. Challenging the Grant of Legal Protection Through Rospatent

The general procedure for challenging a trademark involves filing an opposition with Rospatent against the granting of legal protection to the trademark. This procedure applies if the applicant believes that the trademark was registered in violation of the requirements of Article 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, for example:

1. the trademark lacks distinctiveness;
2. the trademark is descriptive or has become a term in common use;
3. the trademark is confusingly similar to another party’s previously registered trademark;
4. the registration infringes upon rights to a trade name, commercial designation, appellation of origin, or other prior rights;
5. the registration was made in bad faith or with signs of abuse of rights.

It should be noted that when challenging the grant of legal protection to a trademark, the applicant cannot immediately replace the administrative procedure with a court action seeking to invalidate the registration. In practice, it is explicitly noted that a decision on the state registration of a trademark is challenged by filing an opposition with Rospatent, and Rospatent’s decision, made following the consideration of such an opposition, may then be challenged in court. Failure to follow this procedure may result in the application being left without action.

1.2. Challenging Rospatent’s Decision in the Intellectual Property Court

If Rospatent has rejected an opposition or, conversely, has upheld the opposition and terminated the legal protection of the trademark, the interested party has the right to challenge the relevant decision in the Intellectual Property Court.

In such a dispute, the court reviews not only Rospatent’s conclusions but also the thoroughness of the evidence examination, compliance with the opposition proceedings, and the correct application of the legislation in effect on the date the trademark registration application was filed. Practice in 2026 confirms that, when assessing the grounds for invalidating legal protection, the priority date of the disputed mark is of particular significance. Evidence relating to a later period does not, in and of itself, always suffice to confirm the existence of an infringement as of the date of registration.

For example, in the case involving the company “CardioMed,” the court considered a motion to invalidate Rospatent’s decision dated April 16, 2025, which upheld an opposition to the granting of legal protection to the trademark under Russian Federation Certificate No. 926690. The case demonstrates that a trademark dispute in court essentially revolves around reviewing the legality of Rospatent’s decision and the circumstances upon which the administrative conclusion was based.

2. Ways to challenge a trademark

2.1. Early termination of legal protection due to non-use

Another option is the early termination of trademark protection due to non-use for a period of three years. Such a dispute is heard by a court, not Rospatent.

To invoke Article 1486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the applicant must demonstrate an interest in terminating legal protection. In turn, the trademark owner must prove that the trademark has been used in connection with the relevant goods or services, or that the trademark has been used by a licensee or another person under the trademark owner’s control.

In this regard, the courts assess not only the formal use of the mark but also whether consumers perceive the mark as the same trademark. The use of a trademark with modifications to certain elements is permitted provided that such modifications do not alter the essence of the trademark or limit the protection afforded to it. The question of whether the mark remains recognizable to consumers is a question of fact and is assessed by the court based on the results of an analysis of the marks.

2.2. Challenging a Trademark on the Grounds of Unfair Competition

In practice, a significant portion of disputes relate not only to the formal registrability of a mark but also to the conduct of the rights holder. In such cases, applicants invoke Article 14.4 of the Law on the Protection of Competition, which prohibits unfair competition related to the acquisition and use of exclusive rights to means of individualization.

To classify the rights holder’s actions as unfair competition, a set of circumstances must be established:

1. the disputed trademark was used by another party prior to the date the rights holder filed the application;
2. the rights holder knew or should have known of such use;
3. there was a competitive relationship between the parties, or the rights holder’s actions could have affected the competitive landscape;
4. the registration was intended to obtain an unfair advantage, drive out a competitor, block the use of the mark, or profit from another party’s business reputation;
5. the rights holder’s actions caused or could have caused harm to another market participant.

Failure to prove even one of the specified elements generally precludes the possibility of classifying the actions as an act of unfair competition. In this context, the rights holder’s subsequent conduct is relevant, but it is used primarily to confirm the purpose for which the person acquired the exclusive right at the time the application was filed.

3. Key Findings from the 2026 Practice

3.1. The court considers not only the registration but also the actual conduct of the rights holder

In 2026, courts continue to adopt an approach in which trademark registration is not considered in isolation, but rather in the context of the trademark owner’s conduct both before and after obtaining exclusive rights. This is particularly important in cases where the trademark owner asserts claims against parties who previously used the disputed mark.

For example, in the case involving “Medical Line” and “Medline,” the dispute centered on the registration and subsequent use of a trademark in the field of medical services. The trademark owner filed a claim demanding that the use of the trademark be ceased and that compensation be paid, and subsequently proposed settling the dispute by reducing the amount of compensation and entering into a licensing agreement. Following this, “Medline” filed a complaint with the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) alleging signs of a violation of Article 14.4 of the Law on Protection of Competition. This dispute demonstrates that the rights holder’s enforcement activities following trademark registration may be viewed as evidence of the original purpose of acquiring the right if they are directed not at the good-faith protection of the brand, but at restricting the activities of other market participants.

3.2. Failure to use a trademark does not in itself constitute misuse

A common mistake in such disputes is to reduce the trademark owner’s bad faith solely to the fact that they are not using the trademark. However, case law takes a more nuanced approach.

If the trademark owner is temporarily not using the mark for objective reasons, but previously used it in business operations and has not lost a reasonable economic interest in the mark, mere non-use does not in itself constitute an abuse of rights. A different conclusion is possible if it is proven that the person acquired the trademark without the intention of using it to distinguish goods or services, but solely for the purpose of filing claims and seeking compensation.

Thus, to challenge a trademark, it is not sufficient to state: “the trademark owner is not using the mark.” It is necessary to present a broader picture: the absence of actual activity, the absence of preparations for use, the mass registration of marks, the systematic filing of claims, the conclusion of formal licensing agreements, and attempts to hinder the activities of a specific market participant.

3.3. A license agreement does not always constitute evidence of good-faith use of a trademark

Rights holders often argue that the trademark is not used by them personally, but by a licensee. This argument is generally valid, since the use of a trademark under a license agreement may confirm that the trademark is being used for the purposes of Article 1486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Nevertheless, courts verify the reality of such use. If the license agreement is merely a formality, the licensee does not actually sell goods or services under the disputed mark, and the parties are affiliated, such an agreement may not confirm the rights holder’s good faith. In such cases, the court will assess not the existence of the agreement as a document, but its actual performance.

In this regard, when defending a trademark, it is important for the rights holder to preserve evidence of actual use in advance: agreements, certificates, invoices, advertising materials, sales data, photographs of labeling, product cards, information regarding the placement of the mark on the website, and evidence of monitoring the licensee’s use of the mark.

3.4. The registration of a similar mark following the expiration of the protection of the previous mark may be deemed an abuse

Of particular significance is the situation where a rights holder repeatedly registers similar marks after the legal protection of a previous trademark has been terminated due to non-use.

In practice, it has been noted that if, after losing a dispute regarding the early termination of protection, a person effectively registers a new similar mark to circumvent a court order that has entered into force and to block the actions of the interested party, such actions may be deemed an abuse of rights. In such cases, the court evaluates not only the new trademark but also the entire history of the rights holder’s conduct: previous registrations, termination of protection, the degree of similarity between the new marks, the existence of a dispute with the interested party, and the attempt to maintain a monopoly on the mark without actually using it.

3.5. Challenging a trademark requires evidence of the correct date

In trademark disputes, the date on which legally relevant facts are established is of critical importance. As a rule, the situation as of the filing date or the priority date of the trademark is analyzed to assess the validity of the registration.

For example, if the applicant claims that the mark was known to consumers prior to the registration of the disputed mark, evidence must be provided specifically for the period prior to the priority date. If the applicant cites the use of the mark in their business activities, such use must be substantiated prior to the rights holder’s filing of the application. If the applicant claims that the rights holder was aware of another party’s mark, the source of such awareness must be demonstrated: negotiations, contractual relationships, joint activities, correspondence, claims, publications, or participation in the same market.

Practice in 2026 confirms that evidence relating only to the period after registration is not always sufficient to establish a defect in registration. Such evidence may be useful as supplementary evidence of the rights holder’s conduct, but it does not replace evidence relating to the time of filing the application.

3.6. The court does not allow a standalone claim to “declare an abuse of rights” without a proper cause of action

The 2026 practice note specifically points out that the law does not establish a special procedure for recognizing a rights holder’s actions related to the state registration of a trademark as an abuse of rights, nor does it provide for the possibility of filing a separate claim solely to have such actions recognized as an abuse of rights.

This means that the applicant must correctly determine the method of protection. Depending on the purpose of the dispute, this may be:

1. an opposition to the granting of legal protection to a trademark;
2. an appeal against a decision by Rospatent;
3. a petition for early termination of legal protection due to non-use;
4. filing a complaint with the antitrust authority regarding unfair competition;
5. filing a lawsuit with the Intellectual Property Court to have the rights holder’s actions recognized as an act of unfair competition, if such a remedy is appropriate under the circumstances of the case.

Choosing the wrong form of defense may result in the claim being dismissed, the claim being returned, or the claim being denied, regardless of whether the claimant has factual grounds for the dispute.

4. What evidence do you need to prepare to challenge a trademark?

To successfully challenge a trademark, it is necessary to compile a body of evidence in advance. Depending on the grounds for the challenge, this may include:

1. evidence of prior use of the mark: contracts, invoices, receipts, delivery notes, advertising materials, catalogs, packaging, website screenshots, product listings on marketplaces, media publications;
2. evidence of the sign’s reputation: sales volume, advertising expenses, geographic reach, customer reviews, publications, participation in trade shows, results of market research;
3. evidence of the rights holder’s awareness: correspondence, negotiations, agreements between the parties, participation in joint procurements, joint projects, previous claims;
4. evidence of competitive relations: overlap in types of activities, markets, customers, sales channels, NTCU classes, commercial offers;
5. evidence of bad faith: mass registration of marks without use, filing claims against various market participants, lack of actual business activity, formal licensing agreements, re-registration of similar marks after the termination of protection for previous marks;
6. evidence of non-use of the trademark: absence of goods in circulation, absence of advertising, absence of a website or offers, information from open sources, responses from counterparties, materials from the examination of evidence.

In practice, it is particularly important that evidence be dated and correspond to the legal fact it is intended to prove. For example, to prove prior use of a mark, it is not sufficient to submit recent screenshots of a website. It must be demonstrated that the mark was used prior to the priority date of the disputed trademark.