Russian court practice on defending a Russian trademark portfolio against privately held Russian companies: 2026 update

Amendments to Russian IP enforcement procedure and a sequence of notable IP Court rulings in early 2026 have shifted the practical landscape for foreign companies defending their Russian trademark registrations against challenges brought by privately held Russian entities. The change is not merely doctrinal. In-house counsel at multinationals with Russian brand exposure will find that defensive strategies that were adequate twelve months ago now carry measurable additional risk — particularly around non-use cancellation claims and the registration of confusingly similar marks by domestic competitors.

Before the current period, defending a Russian trademark portfolio against privately held Russian companies was principally a matter of monitoring Rospatent opposition proceedings and, where necessary, bringing infringement claims before the commercial (arbitrazh) courts. Russian courts applied a relatively uniform approach to assessing similarity of marks, and the threshold for establishing bad faith in a rival registration was understood by most practitioners to be high.

Two developments have altered that picture.

First, the IP Court and the appellate circuit courts have refined their approach to non-use cancellation under Russian trademark legislation. Claimants — including privately held Russian companies with no legitimate interest in the mark in question — have successfully invoked cancellation proceedings where the foreign brand owner holds a registration but has reduced or suspended commercial activity in Russia. Courts have moved away from treating registration alone as a sufficient defence. Evidence of genuine use, calibrated to the specific goods and services listed on the registration, is now examined more closely. Partial cancellation — removing classes or sub-classes where use cannot be demonstrated — has become a more common outcome than outright maintenance of the registration.

Second, the standard for finding bad faith in an application by a privately held Russian company has become more nuanced. Earlier rulings tended to focus on whether the applicant had a direct commercial relationship with the foreign brand owner and whether that relationship gave rise to a duty of loyalty. The 2026 cases have expanded the enquiry. Courts now assess market awareness more broadly — whether the applicant knew or should have known of the foreign mark's reputation even without a formal contractual nexus. This is a meaningful extension. It exposes a wider category of potential bad-faith registrations to challenge, but it also requires stronger evidentiary preparation from foreign brand owners seeking to invalidate a rival registration.

"The 2026 IP Court rulings signal that passive portfolio maintenance is no longer a viable defence strategy in Russia — foreign brand owners must demonstrate active, documented use to resist cancellation claims by privately held competitors." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners

The developments above do not affect all foreign trademark holders equally. Three categories carry elevated exposure.

The first is multinationals that suspended or significantly reduced Russian market operations after 2022 but retained their Rospatent registrations. These companies hold registrations that are, in practice, commercially dormant. Under the current non-use standard, a privately held Russian company with commercial ambitions in the relevant product category can mount a credible cancellation claim after the applicable non-use period. For in-house counsel managing a Russian subsidiary or a dormant Russian holding structure, this risk is live and actionable.

The second category is foreign companies whose Russian registrations cover broad class specifications — registrations filed during market entry phases that encompass goods and services the foreign brand owner has never actively marketed in Russia. Russian courts now scrutinise class-by-class use evidence. A registration that looks robust on paper may be partially vulnerable if the use evidence does not map precisely onto the registered specification.

The third category involves foreign brand owners facing privately held Russian companies that have already obtained a Rospatent registration for a confusingly similar mark. Challenging that registration through an invalidation action before Rospatent or through the IP Court requires demonstrating either bad faith or likelihood of confusion against an established earlier right. The evidentiary threshold for the bad-faith limb has shifted, as noted above, in a way that is ultimately favourable to well-prepared foreign claimants — but the preparation work is more extensive than it was.

For foreign companies operating Russian subsidiaries directly, the interaction between trademark ownership and the corporate structure also warrants review. Where the Russian operating entity is the registered trademark owner rather than the foreign parent, a change in the subsidiary's commercial position can affect the use evidence available for the portfolio's defence. IP Enforcement practice advice on how to align portfolio ownership with operational structure has become more frequently sought since these rulings.

For in-house counsel assessing whether your Russian trademark registrations remain defensible following the 2026 court developments, an early-stage portfolio review is the appropriate first step. Make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

The practical response to the 2026 developments divides into three areas.

Use evidence documentation. The most immediate task is auditing the use evidence available for each registration in the Russian portfolio. This means identifying, for each registered mark and for each class and sub-class, what documented commercial activity exists in Russia — and, critically, whether that activity would satisfy the standard Russian courts and Rospatent now apply. Where gaps exist, legal advice on whether use can be restored or whether a strategic narrowing of the registration's scope is preferable should be sought before a cancellation action is filed against the foreign brand owner.

Monitoring and early intervention. Russian patent and trademark databases are publicly searchable. Privately held Russian companies filing applications for marks that are similar to a foreign brand owner's registration can be identified early. An opposition filed at the application stage is materially less costly and procedurally simpler than an invalidation action after registration has been granted. Foreign brand owners who are not running systematic monitoring of Russian filing activity — whether through local counsel or a dedicated watch service — are accepting a risk that is avoidable. The matters section of this site includes representative examples of early-intervention proceedings the firm has conducted on behalf of foreign trademark holders.

Reviewing the bad-faith challenge toolkit. Where a privately held Russian company has already obtained a confusingly similar registration, the 2026 rulings offer a modestly more accessible bad-faith argument than was available before — provided the foreign brand owner can demonstrate market awareness by the applicant at the time of filing. Evidence of the mark's reputation in Russia, including commercial use by the foreign owner, its Russian distributor, or licensees, is central. Assembling and preserving this evidence early — before a dispute has formally commenced — is the single most important preparatory step available to foreign brand owners in 2026.

For matters requiring coordination across the EAEU registration system — where a Eurasian trademark registration is held alongside or instead of a national Russian registration — the considerations above apply with some procedural modifications. The firm's IP Enforcement practice advises on both national and EAEU portfolio defence strategies.

If your Russian or EAEU trademark registrations face non-use cancellation risk or a challenge from a privately held Russian competitor, request our practice review: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

Two points of ongoing uncertainty are worth noting for in-house counsel and foreign law firms advising on Russian IP matters.

The first is the precise evidential threshold for partial cancellation. The direction of travel — towards closer scrutiny of class-by-class use — is clear, but the point at which courts will treat a reduction in Russian market activity as legally insufficient use remains subject to circuit-level variation. Practitioners advising on portfolio decisions should expect some inconsistency across jurisdictions until the IP Court issues more definitive guidance.

The second is how the expanded bad-faith doctrine will interact with cases involving EAEU registrations held by foreign brand owners. The IP Court's approach to bad faith in the national context does not translate automatically to EAEU proceedings. Pending further rulings, foreign brand owners holding Eurasian marks alongside Russian national registrations should treat the two portfolios as requiring separate defensive assessments.

For strategic background on the analytical framework underlying Russian courts' approach to these issues, see How Russian Courts Approach Defending a Russian Trademark Portfolio and Strategic Considerations in Defending a Russian Trademark Portfolio.

• How Russian Courts Approach Defending a Russian Trademark Portfolio
• Strategic Considerations in Defending a Russian Trademark Portfolio
• IP Enforcement in Russia: Practice Overview

Q: What specifically changed in Russian court practice on trademark defence in 2026?

A: Two developments are material. First, Russian courts and Rospatent are now applying a closer standard of scrutiny to non-use cancellation claims — examining use evidence class by class and treating reduced commercial activity in Russia as a genuine vulnerability, not merely a formal gap. Second, the IP Court has expanded the bad-faith analysis for rival registrations by privately held Russian companies, moving beyond prior contractual relationships to assess broader market awareness at the time of filing. Both changes increase the preparatory burden on foreign brand owners seeking to maintain or defend their Russian trademark portfolios.

Q: Which types of foreign brand owner face the greatest risk from privately held Russian companies challenging their trademark registrations?

A: Three groups carry the highest exposure. Multinationals that suspended Russian market operations but retained Rospatent registrations face the most immediate non-use cancellation risk. Foreign brand owners with broad class specifications — covering goods and services not actively marketed in Russia — are vulnerable to partial cancellation. And companies that have already identified a confusingly similar registration by a domestic Russian company face a more demanding (though now somewhat more accessible) bad-faith challenge process. In all three cases, the risk is heightened by delay. Early legal assessment of the portfolio's current defensibility is the appropriate first response.

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 — including subsidiaries of European and Asian multinationals — on the defence of Russian and EAEU trademark portfolios against non-use cancellation claims, bad-faith registration challenges, and infringement proceedings. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team provides direct partner involvement on every engagement, operating from Novosibirsk with close procedural familiarity with the IP Court and the commercial court circuit.

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

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/