Rospatent Denies Bioveta Registration of Its Eponymous Trademark in Russia

The Rospatent Collegium has rejected an appeal filed by the Czech company Bioveta against the refusal to register its trademark in Russia. Bioveta produces veterinary vaccines, veterinary medicines, and other animal-related products (Class 05 of the Nice Classification).

The company applied to register the combined designation “bioveta” in 2023. In January 2025, Rospatent declined the application, having identified similarities with several existing Russian trademarks. Among the opposed designations were Biovita Crop Science owned by Grigory Kukharenko (Krasnodar), probiovita owned by Alexandra Antonova (Moscow), as well as registered marks “BVS Biovet Service” of the Firm Biovetservice LLC (Tomsk) and “Biovit” of the Novosibirsk-based Sibbiopharm.

In the appeal filed on May 20, 2025, the applicant argued that Bioveta is part of the company’s trade name and does not fully coincide with any of the opposed marks. According to the Czech firm, elements such as “bio,” “vit,” “vet,” and “vita” are weak components of designations because they are associated with biology, vitamins, and veterinary medicine. The company also referred to a memorable graphic element - an ampoule on a blue background, which distinguishes its mark from competitors.

Bioveta also emphasized in its appeal its status as one of the oldest European manufacturers of veterinary products. The company’s trademark has long been protected by international registrations in Germany, France, Italy, and other countries, well before the Russian applications for similar designations were filed.

The Rospatent Collegium dismissed Bioveta’s arguments concerning the company’s long history and the registration of the designation in other countries.

Patent attorney and managing partner of Zuykov and partners, Sergey Zuykov, assessing Bioveta’s chances of challenging Rospatent’s refusal in court, says that the company would need to obtain written consents from the owners of the opposed marks to register similar trademarks. “Registration without letters of consent is impossible. Such letters are usually submitted to Rospatent; the court may not accept them because, even if they exist, they were not previously submitted to the authority. Therefore, the chances of overturning the decision in court can be considered extremely low,” the expert comments.

He adds that, hypothetically, even without trademark registration, the Czech company can import and market its product in Russia; lack of trademark registration does not prevent this. However, owners of similar registered trademarks may file infringement claims against the Czech company.

Source: Kommersant