IP Court Confirms Fili-Baker’s Right to Use the Designation “Three Chocolates”

The IP Court has rejected a cassation appeal filed by Khlebprom, which sought to prohibit Fili-Baker from using the trademark “Three Chocolates” and to recover 5 million rubles in compensation. The rulings of the first and appellate instances denying the claim were upheld.

Khlebprom JSC registered the “Three Chocolates” trademark in 2019. Fili-Baker LLC attempted to challenge the registration, but in 2021, Rospatent refused to cancel the legal protection of Khlebprom’s disputed brand. In 2023, Khlebprom filed a lawsuit against Fili-Baker, claiming that its competitor had unlawfully used the “Three Chocolates” designation by offering cakes under that name on its website.

Following the lengthy dispute, in 2025, the Moscow Arbitration Court issued a decision regarding the use of the mark. The court found that Fili-Baker had indeed offered a product called “Three Chocolates” cake on its website, but the name appeared beneath its own brand, Pancho Factory. The court acknowledged that the phrase was identical to the claimant’s trademark. Still, it concluded that “Three Chocolates” denotes a specific type of confectionery product and, according to classification standards, refers to a variety of cakes, alongside “Napoleon,” “Tiramisu,” “Prague,” and “Medovik.”

The court also took into account sociological research showing that most respondents perceive “Three Chocolates” as a recipe or a type of confectionery product. Therefore, the court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the goods of different producers in consumers’ minds, since Fili-Baker’s website clearly indicated its company name and brand Pancho Factory.

According to Aleksei Gavrishev, managing partner at AVG Legal, the case is “indicative, as it highlights the fine line between trademark protection and the freedom to describe one’s product.” The courts effectively confirmed that if a registered mark has become a common term, its use does not necessarily infringe the owner’s exclusive rights, Gavrishev noted.

Patent attorney and managing partner of Zuykov and partners, Sergey Zuykov, recalled a 2019 ruling by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which states that protection of a trademark cannot be denied as long as its legal protection has not been invalidated. Therefore, in his view, priority should have been given to the principle of trademark protection. If the trademark is not annulled, the dispute over its use by a competitor may attract the attention of the Supreme Court, the lawyer added.

Source: Kommersant