Rospatent enforcement trend: defending a Russian trademark portfolio — 2027 update

Amendments to Rospatent's examination and opposition procedures that took effect in early 2027 have materially changed the enforcement environment for foreign companies defending trademark portfolios in Russia. The changes affect how non-use cancellation petitions are processed, how bad-faith filing challenges are assessed, and how Rospatent's Chamber for Patent Disputes handles oppositions lodged by third parties. For in-house counsel managing Russian trademark registrations on behalf of a multinational, the practical consequences are immediate: the window for reactive defence has shortened, and the documentation standard for demonstrating genuine use has become more exacting.

Before the 2027 amendments, a trademark proprietor facing a non-use cancellation petition before the Chamber for Patent Disputes was entitled to submit evidence of use at any point up to the closing of the oral hearing. That procedural latitude allowed foreign brand owners to gather use evidence retroactively — an approach that Russian IP practitioners had relied upon for years as a practical buffer against cancellation actions launched by competitors or bad-faith applicants.

Under the revised procedure, evidence of genuine use must be submitted within a defined period following service of the cancellation petition. Late submissions are now admitted only at the Chamber's discretion, applying a materiality threshold that has, in practice, proven restrictive in the first quarters since implementation. The effect is a front-loading of the evidentiary burden: the trademark proprietor must assemble, translate, and file qualified use evidence quickly, without the tactical flexibility that the prior regime permitted.

A parallel change concerns bad-faith filing challenges. Rospatent has broadened the factual inquiry it conducts when a foreign company seeks to invalidate a Russian trademark registered by a third party who appropriated the foreign mark. The inquiry now considers the extent of the original brand's market presence in Russia and in EAEU member states at the date of the impugned filing — a standard that raises the evidentiary bar for foreign companies whose Russian market entry was limited or whose EAEU registrations were incomplete at the relevant time.

Before 2027: non-use cancellation evidence could be submitted up to the oral hearing; bad-faith standard focused on intent of the applicant. After 2027: non-use evidence must be submitted within a set period from service; bad-faith inquiry now includes the foreign mark's EAEU market presence at the filing date.

The amendments bear most directly on foreign companies that fall into three identifiable categories.

The first is multinational consumer goods and technology brands with established Russian registrations but limited active use in the Russian market since 2022. Their portfolios present the highest cancellation risk: registrations are on file, competitors are aware of them, and the period of demonstrable commercial use in Russia has been compressed. Non-use cancellation petitions targeting exactly this cohort have increased measurably in the Rospatent opposition docket over the past eighteen months.

The second category is foreign companies that registered their marks in Russia but did not extend those registrations to cover the full EAEU — Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan. Under the revised bad-faith standard, the absence of EAEU coverage weakens the evidentiary basis for a bad-faith challenge. A third-party applicant can argue that the foreign mark's presence in the region was insufficiently established at the filing date, even where the mark enjoys strong recognition globally. For in-house counsel responsible for a Russian trademark portfolio, this is a material exposure if EAEU registrations were allowed to lapse or were never filed.

The third category is foreign companies currently in a parallel import dispute or otherwise engaged in adversarial proceedings with a Russian counterparty. These situations create an incentive for the counterparty to launch a cancellation action against the foreign company's trademarks — not necessarily to succeed on cancellation, but to disrupt enforcement, leverage settlement, or create procedural complexity. The tightened evidence timeline makes that tactic more effective than it was previously.

For in-house counsel managing Russian IP exposure on behalf of a foreign parent, the regulatory timeline leaves limited margin for delay in reviewing the current state of the portfolio.

If your company holds Russian trademark registrations and you have not reviewed their status against the 2027 amendments, make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

The practical response to the 2027 amendments follows three immediate priorities.

The first is a portfolio audit. In-house counsel should identify which registrations are at heightened cancellation risk — those covering goods or services where commercial use in Russia has been limited or suspended, those approaching the three-year non-use threshold, and those in product categories where competitor activity in the Rospatent opposition docket is documented. For each at-risk registration, the question is whether defensible use evidence exists and, if not, whether the registration is worth defending or should be allowed to lapse strategically to avoid creating a target.

The second priority is EAEU alignment. Foreign companies that hold Russian registrations without corresponding EAEU coverage should assess whether the gap creates a vulnerability under the revised bad-faith standard. Filing EAEU applications now, where commercially justified, addresses the evidentiary weakness that the new inquiry standard has introduced. This is not a precautionary observation — it is a concrete step that materially strengthens a bad-faith challenge if one becomes necessary.

The third priority is evidence readiness. Under the front-loaded evidence regime, the time between service of a cancellation petition and the deadline for submitting use evidence is short. Foreign brand owners who have not pre-assembled their use evidence files — commercial invoices, shipping records, advertising materials, distribution agreements, labelling samples, and any other documentation of market presence in Russia — face a practical problem if a petition is served without warning. The preparation of that evidence file, translated and legally certified where required, is now a routine portfolio management task rather than a reactive measure.

The firm's IP enforcement practice has assisted foreign trademark owners in both defensive and offensive Rospatent proceedings. Guidance on how Russian courts approach the substantive questions that arise from these proceedings is available at How Russian courts approach defending a Russian trademark portfolio, and a broader strategic framework is set out in Strategic considerations in defending a Russian trademark portfolio.

The full scope of the firm's IP enforcement work, including representation before Rospatent's Chamber for Patent Disputes and at the IP Court on cassation, is described on the IP Enforcement practice page. A record of representative matters is available at /matters/.

• How Russian courts approach defending a Russian trademark portfolio
• Strategic considerations in defending a Russian trademark portfolio
• IP Enforcement — Practice Overview

Q: What specifically changed in Rospatent's procedure for defending a trademark portfolio in 2027?

A: The principal change is the front-loading of the evidentiary burden in non-use cancellation proceedings. Before 2027, trademark proprietors could submit use evidence up to the oral hearing before the Chamber for Patent Disputes. Under the revised procedure, that evidence must be filed within a defined period following service of the cancellation petition. Late submissions are now admitted only at the Chamber's discretion, and in practice that discretion has been applied restrictively. A second change concerns bad-faith filing challenges: Rospatent now assesses the foreign mark's market presence across EAEU member states at the date of the impugned filing, raising the evidentiary bar for foreign companies with limited regional coverage.

Q: Which foreign companies face the greatest risk under the 2027 amendments?

A: Three categories are most exposed. First, foreign brands with Russian registrations that have seen limited commercial use in Russia since 2022 — these registrations are vulnerable to non-use cancellation petitions filed by competitors. Second, foreign companies whose Russian trademarks lack corresponding EAEU registrations, as the revised bad-faith standard now examines regional market presence at the filing date, weakening the challenge if EAEU coverage is absent. Third, companies in adversarial proceedings with Russian counterparties, where cancellation actions are increasingly used as a tactical instrument to create procedural leverage. In-house counsel should assess which of these risk profiles applies to their portfolio as a first step.

Q: What immediate steps should in-house counsel take to protect a Russian trademark portfolio?

A: Three steps are immediately actionable. First, conduct a portfolio audit to identify registrations at risk of non-use cancellation — focusing on those approaching the three-year threshold and those in categories where commercial use has been reduced. Second, assess whether EAEU registration gaps exist and file where commercially justified to strengthen any future bad-faith challenge. Third, prepare use evidence files in advance: commercial invoices, distribution records, advertising materials, and other documentation of market presence in Russia, translated and certified where required. Under the new front-loaded evidence regime, assembling that file reactively after a petition is served is a significantly riskier approach than having it prepared before a challenge arises.

Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009. The firm is recognised by Pravo-300 — Russia's principal legal directory — for eight consecutive years, and is listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.

The firm's IP enforcement practice advises foreign trademark owners on defensive and offensive proceedings before Rospatent's Chamber for Patent Disputes, the IP Court, and the commercial courts of the Siberian Federal District. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines deep procedural knowledge of Russian IP enforcement with direct partner involvement on every engagement. Foreign clients benefit from Russian-language submissions capability and English-language reporting throughout.

Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom

"The 2027 amendments have reduced the procedural latitude that foreign trademark owners previously relied upon as a buffer. Defensive preparation — evidence readiness and EAEU coverage — is now a standing portfolio management obligation, not a reactive measure." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners

This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.

— Elizaveta Razina Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/