Foreign Brands that Left the Market: What’s Next for Them?

In 2022, many foreign companies publicly announced the suspension of activities in Russia. This statement was followed by the closure of stores and the cessation of online sales of goods of some well-known brands to the Russian consumer. However, when leaving the market, companies still have their trademarks in the Russian Federation - reliable tools for protecting the brand from illegal use in the relevant territory.

In addition, even after leaving the domestic market, many of the foreign companies continue to register their trademarks and/or actively extend their validity in Russia. For example, according to media reports referring to the electronic database of Rospatent, such brands as Zara, Uniqlo, Hyundai, Kia, Apple, Carlsberg, Mastercard, Victoria's Secret, Mercedes-Benz, Coca-Cola, etc. are reported.

In this regard, many wonder whether this means that such companies plan to resume activities in Russia? Let's try to figure it out.

Experts note that during the absence of the official trademark owner in the country, their intellectual property objects become the most vulnerable. In particular, other companies operating in the Russian Federation can use the recognisable designation in one way or another, for example, try to derive commercial benefits by taking advantage of the successful reputation of the brand if it loses the right to protect the trademark in Russia.

It follows from this that the mere fact of registering a trademark and extending its validity in a certain territory does not mean that the right holders will return to Russia in the near future. However, it is logical to assume that each of them is interested in protecting their brand (from counterfeiting or other unfair use), including taking into account the possible prospect of return.     

Both domestic and foreign media also say that foreign companies are afraid of the cancellation of their trademarks. In particular, Bloomberg, referring to the analysis of court documents conducted by Bloomberg Businessweek, notes that since the beginning of 2024, more than 300 foreign companies have their trademarks in Russia under threat.

The problem is that in order to preserve the right to a trademark, it must be actually used in civil circulation in the territory where the mark is granted legal protection. Otherwise, the protection of a trademark can be terminated early if it is not used continuously for three years.

Such consequences are provided for by Article 1486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which any interested person has the right to apply to the court with such a claim if the right holder, who does not use the mark within the specified period, does not refuse it or does not transfer the exclusive right to the trademark to the interested party.

At the same time, the burden of proof of the use of the trademark lies with the right holder (Clause 3 of Article 1486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). It should be noted separately that the introduction of goods into circulation through parallel imports is not the use of a trademark, since, in this case, the consent of the right holder is not required to import goods into the territory of Russia. Several dozen groups of consumer goods are included, many of which are produced by "gone" brands.

In this case, the question arises – what will happen to a well-known foreign brand if the legal protection of its trademark ceases in Russia?

From a legal point of view, the termination of the legal protection of a trademark means the termination of the exclusive right to this trademark (Clause 4 of Article 1486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In such a situation, the right holder will not be able to demand the protection of his interests if other persons use his designation without the consent of the right holder.  

Does this mean that any person will be able to use the "orphaned" designation at their own discretion, for example, to make and sell furniture items in Russia under the IKEA brand or to open a café under the McDonald's sign?

At the moment, some experts are sceptical about such a commercial prospect, given the wide popularity of such brands and the general awareness of consumers about their departure from Russia. In addition, the release of goods under a known consumer, but formally cancelled by a trademark or a designation similar to it, can be qualified as unfair competition and misleading consumers.

Starbucks vs. Stars Coffee

In this regard, a dispute between a foreign company - the owner of the brand "Starbucks" (a chain of coffee shops) and a domestic entrepreneur - a co-owner of the café chain "STARS COFFEE", in which the entrepreneur demanded early termination of the legal protection of the trademarks of his foreign competitor.

Thus, the entrepreneur referred to his interest in the use of designations, the figurative and verbal elements of which are similar to the trademarks of the defendant. He was motivated by the fact that, as part of the preparatory measures taken by him, he filed applications for registration of designations that were opposed to the disputed trademarks of the defendant:

Defendant's trademark

Designation of the plaintiff

The court compared the designations and came to the following conclusions:

• Verbal elements are not similar either phonetically or semantically;
• The pictorial elements are not similar to the point of confusion, because they cause different associative connections, have different meanings, different images (in one case it is a siren (a sea creature with a woman's head, which lured sailors to fatal places by singing), in the other case it is a girl in a kokoshnik (the personification of Russia, since the kokoshnik is one of the symbols of the Russian costume).

In addition, the court pointed out that the defendant's trademark is widely known to consumers and associated with its activities. However, most consumers are also aware that Starbucks ceased operations in the Russian Federation in 2022, having made a public statement about leaving the Russian market, and its assets were bought out by domestic entrepreneurs (this is the opinion of 75% of respondents to a sociological survey. Consumers have no reason to believe that the disputed designations belong to the same person, and, therefore, there is no doubt about the likelihood of their confusion in civil circulation.

Thus, despite the dismissal of the claim, this case confirms that Russian entrepreneurs managed to successfully rebrand and occupy the niche vacated after the departure of a foreign brand, which, by the way, in July 2024, extended the validity of several trademarks in Russia, and in March 2025 registered another mark.

In conclusion, we note that in the near future, we are likely to have a lot of other interesting disputes related to the departed foreign brands, given that three years have passed since their departure, and this is the deadline for non-use of the trademark.