An entrepreneur from Bashkiria lost a lawsuit against a retailer over compensation for using the brand

The copyright holder of the trademark for dairy products "Beloe Oblako" ("White Cloud"), Elvira Iskhakova, lost a lawsuit against Style Trading House LLC. The businesswoman demanded that the company pay her 205.2 thousand rubles in compensation for the use of her brand. In 2024, the Arbitration Court of Bashkiria granted the claim. Initially, she demanded the recovery of almost 1.8 billion rubles, citing that between 2018 and 2021, the company had illegally traded dairy products under her trademark. Subsequently, Iskhakova reduced the amount of claims to 205.2 thousand rubles. In May 2025, the 18th Arbitration Court of Appeal changed the decision, completely rejecting Iskhakova's claims.

The claims of the entrepreneur were based on the fact that the Style Trading House received a batch of products not directly from the Miyakinsky dairy plant (Miyakimolzavod JSC) controlled by her, but from the Miyaki Ecoprodukt company of entrepreneur Ralis Makhiyanov. Iskhakova stated that she had not permitted Makhiyanov or Style Trading House to use the brand.

Miyaki Ecoprodukt became involved in the case due to the fact that in 2020, its beneficiary, Ralis Makhiyanov, tried to save Miyakimolzavod by investing 194.5 million rubles in the company. For this, he leased the company's production facilities and produced White Cloud dairy products. As a result, Iskhakova accused him of violating intellectual property rights.

The court of first instance agreed with the arguments of the businesswoman, finding the Style Trading House guilty of distributing "counterfeit" products. However, the appeal completely overturned this decision. 

The loss in the appeal is since the principle of the so-called exhaustion of the exclusive right to a trademark was not applied, Yaroslav Shitsle, a lawyer at the Rustam Kurmaev and Partners law firm, told RBC Ufa. According to this principle, it cannot be considered a violation of the exclusive right to a trademark if the goods were released by the copyright holder himself or with his consent. "Having reviewed the circumstances of the case, the court of appeal has most likely concluded that the products under this brand were put into civil circulation with the consent of the copyright holder, but through a system of affiliated companies," says Shitsle.

Sergey Zuykov, a patent attorney and managing partner of Zuykov and partners, points out that there is another legal dispute between the parties to the case. The court rejected Iskhakova's claim because during the period of "violation of her rights," she did not have the status of an individual entrepreneur and did not put products into circulation. Perhaps, in the current dispute, the appeal also proceeded from this. At the same time, the retailer may be recognized as a violator of brand rights, even if it bought goods from third parties in good faith, the expert added.

"The store, of course, may be responsible for violating the rights of third parties to trademarks if it uses them without the consent of the copyright holder. The integrity of the acquisition does not play any role, it is impossible to violate other people's rights," Zuykov said.

Source: RBC