Non-Use Cancellation Actions in Russia: Recent Practices and the ‘Malicious Interest’ Concept by Anna Degtyareva

Non-Use Cancellation Actions in Russia: Recent Practices and the ‘Malicious Interest’ Concept by Anna Degtyareva, Lawyer at Gorodissky & Partners, Russia.

In The Global IP Magazine Issue 25,  Anna Degtyareva, Lawyer at Gorodissky & Partners, Russia, examines how Russian courts are adapting to a growing wave of bad-faith non-use cancellation actions. As certain entities seek to exploit well-known international brands through trade mark cancellation proceedings, courts are increasingly relying on the concept of “malicious interest” to distinguish legitimate claims from attempts to unfairly capitalise on established reputations.

A Changing Trade Mark Landscape

Recent geopolitical developments have significantly altered the trade mark landscape in Russia. Since 2022, the reduction or suspension of activities by a number of foreign businesses has created opportunities for bad-faith actors seeking to register or acquire rights to internationally recognised brands.

While applications for identical or similar marks are often blocked by existing registrations, some applicants have pursued a different strategy filing non-use cancellation actions against existing trade marks in an effort to remove obstacles and secure ownership of valuable brands. With Russia’s three-year non-use grace period now affecting many dormant registrations, these actions have become increasingly common.

Understanding Non-Use Cancellation Actions

Under Article 1486 of the Russian Civil Code, an interested party may seek cancellation of a trade mark that has not been used for three consecutive years. Claimants must demonstrate a legitimate commercial interest, while trade mark owners must provide evidence of genuine use for the relevant goods and services.

Historically, courts applied these requirements in a largely formal manner, focusing primarily on procedural compliance. However, as misuse of the cancellation system has increased, judges have begun taking a closer look at the motivations behind such actions.

The Emergence of ‘Malicious Interest’

In response to increasing attempts to target famous brands, the Russian IP Court has developed the concept of “malicious interest.” Although not explicitly defined in legislation, the doctrine is rooted in the broader legal principle prohibiting abuse of rights.

Rather than focusing solely on whether a claimant can formally demonstrate interest, courts are increasingly examining the purpose behind the cancellation action. If the evidence suggests that a claimant's objective is to exploit the reputation and goodwill of a well-known trade mark, that interest may be deemed unlawful. This marks a significant shift from a purely procedural assessment toward a more substantive evaluation of good faith and commercial intent.

A Stronger Defence for Famous Brands

Recent decisions involving globally recognised trade marks illustrate this evolving judicial approach. Russian courts have expanded their analysis of trade mark reputation, consumer perception, and the likelihood that consumers will associate even unrelated products with a famous brand.

In several cases, courts found that claimants failed to provide legitimate explanations for selecting marks closely resembling well-known brands. As a result, judges concluded that the actions constituted bad faith, unfair competition, and an abuse of rights. These rulings demonstrate a growing willingness to protect famous trade marks not only through traditional non-use principles but also through broader considerations of reputation and consumer confusion.

Implications for Trade Mark Owners

The development of the malicious interest doctrine provides an important additional layer of protection for brand owners operating in Russia. While evidence of genuine use remains critical, courts are increasingly recognising that reputation, consumer association, and claimant intent are equally relevant when evaluating cancellation actions.

For owners of famous brands, demonstrating market recognition and highlighting signs of bad-faith conduct may become an increasingly effective strategy when defending against opportunistic challenges.

Conclusion

As Degtyareva explains, Russia’s evolving approach to non-use cancellation actions reflects a growing recognition that trade mark law must address not only formal legal requirements but also bad-faith attempts to exploit established brand reputations. The emergence of the malicious interest doctrine represents a significant step toward strengthening protection for well-known trade marks in an increasingly complex enforcement landscape.

Read the full article in The Global IP Magazine Issue 25 to explore how Russian courts are using the concept of “malicious interest” to combat brand squatting and strengthen protections for famous trade marks.

READ THE ARTICLE NOW!