Insights, analysis and perspectives on intellectual property law, market trends, and regulatory changes.
Our team shares expertise through articles, case studies, and analytical materials on IP protection and enforcement.
Rospatent overturned refusal of international registration No. 1831551: Article 1483(3)(1) risk eliminated by Europapier group affiliation with Micro ASU; duplicate goods in Classes 16 and 24 remedied under Article 1497(3).
Rospatent dismissed opposition to Certificate No. 1078203: high goods similarity to international trademark No. 1812213 SEGLOBIA, but no confusing similarity — Cyrillic/Latin, phonetic and semantic differences decisive; semaglutide trade name noted.
Rospatent reversed refusal of Application No. 2024748789 for ARMYTEK: phonetic similarity to Certificates Nos. 364041/733832 established, but Article 1483(6) obstacle overcome due to absence of goods similarity; IP Court case SIP-629/2025 narrowed cited rights.
Rospatent overturned refusal of Application No. 2024709412: internet evidence insufficient under Article 1483(3)(1); applicant change to Shantou Quanguan Culture Co., Ltd. under Article 1500 eliminated misleading risk.
FoodWay LLC had standing without registered rights; “Dr Pepper” found confusingly similar for Class 32 non-alcoholic beverages — but opposed Applications No. 2022715182/5183 were refused, so opposition failed despite similarity.
Opposition to Certificate No. 979738 refused — Article 1483(3)(1) not proved: no stable consumer association, insufficient Russian market evidence; standing recognized only for Classes 05 and 35, not 03, 29, 30, or 32.
Report No. 236 (VK LLC): refusal of Application No. 2024720746 annulled — “VK” recognized as distinctive, acquired distinctiveness since 2015, “VK Capsule Neo” obstacle overcome via single-source affiliation in the VK group.
Report No. 232 (CHINA FIRST AUTOMOBILE GROUP CORP.): opposition to Certificate No. 889521 refused — identical “FAW” marks, but Classes 01/04 auto chemicals not homogeneous with Class 12 vehicles; trade name and fame grounds rejected.
Report No. 233: Rospatent refused Application No. 2023824014 under Article 1483(6) vs Certificate No. 814276 — opposition satisfied after applicant acquired the cited mark and exclusive rights consolidated in one holder; October 28, 2025 refusal annulled.
Report No. 234 (ALPHABET LABS DMSS): opposition to IR No. 1790339 “PLENA” refused — [ple-na] vs [plonk] despite homogeneous Class 34 e-cigarette goods; “PLONQ” series insufficient without phonetic similarity.
Report No. 235: Rospatent found “MOSTABAK” descriptive as “Moscow tobacco” yet denied opposition to Certificate No. 900878 — legal protection maintained through intensive use, franchising, and acquired distinctiveness under Article 1483.
PDC allows replacement images without “TOP SECURITY” in opposition to Rospatent’s refusal of DM/249338: the verbal mark was non-essential, third-party certificate 1076234 drove the conflict, and August 20, 2025 priority was preserved.
How limiting amendments—from “Part of a Mop” to “Mop Attachment,” with explanatory images excluded from the claims—brought DM/245399 within the “separable part” concept and allowed the Board to rely on the existing search report for novelty and originality.
How courts assess unauthorized character use in online cake advertising, separate recovery for copyright and trademark holders, and evidence standards for internet infringement.
Analysis of the Pedro Pascal v. Pedro Piscal dispute: similarity test, bad faith standard, name protection, and cross-border domain enforcement strategy.
How systemic cross-border loopholes, ineffective notice-and-takedown cycles, and limited labeling controls drive the growth of counterfeit toy listings on major Russian marketplaces.
How correcting the title of an industrial design in opposition proceedings removed a formal obstacle, triggered substantive examination, and led to protection under International Registration No. DM/246632.
How the Board treated a character name as a protected copyright element: Article 1483(9)(1), cumulative notoriety evidence, and higher proof threshold under Article 1483(3)(1).
Why the Board rejected the opposition in the LAF dispute: no overlap of goods/services, no confusing similarity of signs, and no grounds under Article 6-septies.
Board confirms refusal: “CRISPY” vs “CRYSPI” phonetically identical for Russian consumers (Криспи); Class 43 vs 42 similar; non-use and disclaimer arguments fail.
How the Board split the outcome by Nice Class: refusal in Class 41 (vs “REBIRTH” No. 855182) and allowance in Classes 25 and 28 (vs “ребинт” No. 860149); non-use and liquidation arguments excluded at examination.
The IP Court Presidium upheld denial of early termination for International Registration No. 1228292: bad faith, Art. 10 Civil Code, and reputation transfer for HUGO BOSS.
Rospatent isolated "ZEO" as dominant and confusingly similar to the cited mark; Beijing Roborock's three-word argument did not persuade the Chamber for Patent Disputes.
How the dominant element "FLOSSY" shaped the similarity analysis and led to partial invalidation across Classes 24 and 25.
Kaluga distillery «Kristall» files a non-use cancellation claim at Russia's IP Court against DTTM Operations (Trump-affiliated) for the Trump trademark in Class 33 (spirits). Analysis and timeline from iPpro.
Phonetic similarity, cross-class goods homogeneity, and a sociological survey showing 52–54% confusion led to full invalidation of the contested mark.
How Becton, Dickinson and Company reversed a Rospatent refusal for its two-letter mark by documenting 45+ years of market presence and industry recognition.
How patentability reshapes academic qualification models, and why China’s approach diverges from the EU and U.S. systems.
Why online sales already create legal exposure, and how trademarks, translation, color standards, and designs protect market entry.
Why phonetic similarity prevails in Class 25 and how Rospatent weighs pronunciation over styling.
How semantic and cultural associations drive refusal decisions in fashion and lifestyle markets.
How the CPP evaluated consumer deception, historical market use, and archived web evidence in a Class 10 trademark refusal.
IPPRO legal insight on Article 7 EUTMR, 2025 General Court case law, and practical implications for trademark strategy in Russia.
Analysis of Chloé fashion house successful trademark registration in Russia. Rospatent examination, Nice Classification classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, exclusive rights, customs registration, and enforcement implications for luxury brands.
Detailed analysis of LEGO Juris A/S successful invalidation of LEGOROD trademark in Russian IP Court. Consumer surveys as evidence, likelihood of confusion test, famous trademark protection, and practical implications for businesses.
Legal analysis of Matthew McConaughey's trademark registrations of memes and phrases. Personal brand protection in the age of AI, deepfakes, and digital identity. How celebrities are using trademark law to protect their image and voice from unauthorized commercial use in the digital era.
Comprehensive analysis of the 13th Edition of the Nice Classification (Version 2026). Key amendments by class, practical recommendations for trademark applicants, and expert commentary on critical changes including spectacles reclassification, smart products, and digital services.
Legal analysis of 2026 amendments to Russian consumer protection law regarding foreign-language signage. Requirements for registered trademarks, rebranding implications, and practical recommendations for right holders to ensure compliance.
Legal analysis of GUI protection in Russia, CIS, EU, USA, and Asia. How to protect graphical user interfaces as industrial designs, copyright, and trademarks. Overview of the new Russian legislative initiative and international practice.
An overview of the latest amendments to trademark legislation in Russia and their impact on brand protection strategies for domestic and international companies.
Best practices for using the Eurasian Patent Office to secure patent protection across multiple jurisdictions efficiently and cost-effectively.
Analysis of intellectual property protection mechanisms across CIS countries, including recent regulatory developments and enforcement practices.
Key considerations for drafting and negotiating technology licensing agreements under Russian law, including compliance and tax aspects.
Review of significant IP litigation cases in Russian courts and their potential impact on enforcement strategies and damages recovery.
Strategies for protecting brand identity online, including domain disputes, social media monitoring, and platform-based enforcement mechanisms.
Analysis of software and business method patentability in Russia and EAEU, including recent changes in examination guidelines and case law.
Guidance on structuring international IP transactions involving Russian and CIS assets, including regulatory compliance and tax optimization.
Exploring the use of ADR mechanisms for resolving IP disputes, including practical considerations and recent developments in Russia and CIS.