Serial Non-Use Challenges to Famous Foreign Trade Marks in Russia

Russian courts are increasingly looking beyond a claimant’s formal evidence of market interest. Where a repeat claimant targets famous, unrelated foreign brands, it must show a real, coherent and legally permissible plan to use the sign.

Why the issue has emerged

Article 1486 of the Russian Civil Code allows a court to terminate trade mark protection, wholly or partly, after three consecutive years of non-use. The claimant must first offer the proprietor a choice between surrender and assignment, and must qualify as an interested person. The proprietor bears the burden of proving use during the relevant three-year period.[1]

The mechanism is intended to clear genuine obstacles to market entry. Since 2025, however, the IP Court has faced clusters of claims against foreign brands whose Russian activity declined after 2022. The claimants typically rely on applications for identical signs, activity codes, contracts and plans for future products. Recent decisions test whether those documents reflect a genuine business project or were assembled to capture another party’s reputation.

Three repeat-claimant patterns

Andrey Kozhukharev and the apparel cases

The court register records 17 actions filed by entrepreneur Andrey Kozhukharev between October 2024 and December 2025. The defendants included Burberry, Carhartt, Fred Perry, Stussy, Everlast, Ellesse, Lyle & Scott and several Lonsdale proprietors. As at 6 September 2026, seven actions had been dismissed on the merits, four statements of claim had been returned and six remained pending. None of the identified cases had produced a merits judgment in his favour.[2]

In the BURBERRY case, Kozhukharev relied on online retail activity, a clothing-manufacturing activity code, other trade marks and an application for goods in Classes 18 and 25. On 5 August 2026 the IP Court dismissed the claim. It considered the asserted interest sham or malicious: the claimant had not explained his selection of a designation strongly associated with Burberry and had brought more than ten similar cases within a short period. The Court treated the attempt to benefit from the brand’s reputation, with a resulting risk of consumer deception, as an abuse of rights.[3]

Multigoods Production Limited

A participant search returns 22 cases filed by Multigoods in 2024 against proprietors including Nokia, Amazon, Michelin, Victoria’s Secret, HUGO BOSS, Jaguar Land Rover and CLAAS. Outcomes were mixed. In NOKIA and HUGO BOSS the Court found that applications and contracts formally supported an interest, but that the underlying objective was to obtain the benefit of a famous sign with which the claimant had no commercial connection. By contrast, the Victoria’s Secret case ended in partial cancellation for peripheral goods, confirming that reputation does not preserve every item in a broad specification.[4]

ZAO Stroyresurs

Court records show a further cluster of at least 11 actions brought in 2024 in the name of ZAO Stroyresurs, including cases against Canon and Electrolux. The CANON claim was rejected for want of any real commercial need to use the sign. In ZANUSSI, the Presidium reversed a partial cancellation and dismissed the claim in full, relying on the brand’s wide recognition, the unexplained choice of a name historically linked to the proprietor and an attempt to register an identical sign. A Supreme Court judge refused to transfer the further appeal on 4 June 2026.[5]

The emerging judicial test

There is no statutory category of ‘serial cancellation claimant’, and multiple filings do not prove bad faith by themselves. The emerging inquiry is composite. The most relevant questions are:

1. Does the claimant conduct, or credibly prepare to conduct, a business involving the relevant goods?
2. Why was this sign selected, and is there an explanation independent of the proprietor’s reputation?
3. Do the applications, contracts, products and marketing form a coherent launch plan?
4. Has the claimant pursued other famous, commercially unrelated signs?
5. Could the claimant lawfully register and use the sign if the earlier registration disappeared?

Reputation is relevant even if the mark has not been formally recognised as well known under Article 1508. Brand history, Russian advertising and sales, media coverage, surveys and continuing consumer association can expose an attempt to free-ride. Nevertheless, the proprietor should still prove use where possible: if the claimant establishes a bona fide interest for particular goods, partial cancellation remains available.

The Supreme Court’s contribution

The most relevant reasoned Supreme Court authority is Aeroplan v Nika Furniture. The claimant had previously infringed a trade mark depicting a protected animated character and relied on that dispute to establish its interest. On 6 October 2025 the Economic Chamber held that prior market activity was insufficient: the claimant had to show a real possibility of lawful future use. Cancellation would not remove the proprietor’s copyright or the absolute bar on registering the character without consent. The Court also stressed that standing must be decided before the proprietor’s use evidence is examined. The claim was dismissed on remittal.[6]

Aeroplan supports a substantive test of standing. As at 6 September 2026, however, the Economic Chamber had not issued a reasoned judgment specifically endorsing the IP Court’s ‘malicious interest’ analysis in a serial challenge to a famous foreign word mark. The ZANUSSI refusal to transfer left the Presidium’s ruling intact, but it is not a merits precedent of the full Chamber.

Recommendations for brand owners

1. Audit registrations by individual goods and identify the exact three-year evidence period.
2. Preserve dated Russian use evidence for each commercially important good.
3. Maintain a reputation file covering sales, advertising, media and consumer recognition.
4. Investigate the claimant’s applications, related parties, capacity and other non-use cases.
5. Identify independent barriers to lawful use, and respond promptly to the Article 1486 offer.

Famous marks have no blanket immunity from non-use cancellation. The practical defence is therefore two-track: prove use for the goods that matter, while showing why the particular claimant has no genuine and lawful basis to inherit the commercial meaning created by another business.

[1] Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 1486; Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of 23 April 2019, paras 165-166.

[2] Russian Commercial Courts Case File. Identified cases: SIP-1233/2024, SIP-1235/2024, SIP-3/2025, SIP-4/2025, SIP-5/2025, SIP-391/2025, SIP-440/2025, SIP-473/2025, SIP-482/2025, SIP-483/2025, SIP-484/2025, SIP-487/2025, SIP-1127/2025, SIP-1129/2025, SIP-1130/2025, SIP-1131/2025 and SIP-1146/2025.

[3] IP Court, Kozhukharev v Burberry Limited, Case No. SIP-1127/2025, judgment of 5 August 2026.

[4] See Cases Nos SIP-802/2024 (NOKIA), SIP-803/2024 (VICTORIA’S SECRET) and SIP-1315/2024 (HUGO BOSS).

[5] See Cases Nos SIP-489/2024 (CANON) and SIP-423/2024 (ZANUSSI); Supreme Court single-judge order No. 300-ES26-4860 of 4 June 2026.

[6] Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Economic Chamber, Order No. 300-ES25-2343 of 6 October 2025, Case No. SIP-1077/2023; IP Court judgment on remittal of 12 December 2025.