The expanding strategic partnership between Russia and China, reflected in growing bilateral trade, brings significant opportunities for Chinese businesses across sectors from high-tech to consumer goods. However, this promising landscape is accompanied by distinct intellectual property (IP) challenges that can undermine market entry and long-term growth. A proactive and strategic approach to IP is, therefore, essential for creating and defending business value in the Russian market.
Russia's 'first-to-file' system provides a predictable framework for IP protection, making early trademark registration the most critical step for market entry. A commercial launch of a branded product without secured trademark rights creates immediate vulnerabilities, potentially leading to third-party registrations, customs complications, and costly legal disputes. While the system offers robust enforcement mechanisms—from civil litigation and customs recordals to criminal prosecution—these tools are most effective for those who lay the groundwork in advance.
This article analyzes these challenges and strategies through the lens of recent case studies involving Chinese companies. Examination of real-world examples of both pre-emptive registration conflicts and post-registration enforcement outlines a practical roadmap for navigating the Russian IP landscape. The goal is to provide Chinese businesses with the insights needed to protect their assets, mitigate risks, and secure a durable competitive advantage.
Proactive Registration as a Foundation for Protection
The case involving the Chinese brands «ANCHUYT YAN CHUN TANG YASHENG», «ANCHUYT», «YASHENG» (Case No. SIP-4/2022) demonstrates the challenges in contesting trademark registrations in Russia. In this dispute, several Russian companies engaged in importing Chinese beauty products filed an unfair competition claim against the trademark registrant. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant, who registered the marks, was not the actual manufacturer and acted in bad faith to extract payments from market participants.
However, the court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. Crucially, the defendant presented comprehensive evidence of:
Long-standing business relationships with Chinese manufacturers dating back to 2009-2010;
Substantial investments in brand development;
Earlier use of the disputed marks compared to the plaintiffs;
Manufacturing and import activities supporting his commercial interests.
The court also noted serious concerns regarding the plaintiffs' own business practices, including the use of non-existent Chinese companies in documentation and inability to prove legitimate supply chains from the actual trademark owner in China.
The ruling underscores that successfully challenging trademark registrations requires convincing evidence of both the registrant's bad faith and the claimant's own established rights and legitimate market presence prior to the registration date.
This judicial act exemplifies a determinative aspect of intellectual property law enforcement for foreign rightsholders in the Russian Federation. The legal position established by the court affirms that within the statutory "first-to-file" framework, the absence of timely trademark registration creates substantive legal risks, irrespective of the brand's commercial recognition.
While Russian law provides mechanisms to challenge registrations made in bad faith, the evidentiary requirements remain stringent, and success is uncertain without documented proof of the registrant's malicious intent and the brand's established reputation prior to registration. Consequently, market development through distributors alone cannot substitute for formal trademark protection. The most prudent approach for Chinese businesses involves securing trademark rights before market entry, thereby establishing a solid legal foundation for sustainable operations in the Russian market.
In contrast, the Bitmain case (SIP-1141/2024) demonstrates how comprehensive documentation and strategic legal action can lead to successful outcomes even against fraudulent registrations. Bitmain Technologies, the Chinese leader in cryptocurrency mining hardware, challenged the registration of its "ANTMINER" trademark by OOO "BIT TRADE". The Russian company had submitted formal letters of consent to Rospatent during the registration process, creating the appearance of legitimate rights acquisition. However, Bitmain mounted a thorough legal challenge, proving that these documents were fraudulent and issued by unauthorized persons. The court conducted a detailed examination of the evidence, including Bitmain's international trademark portfolio, global recognition of the ANTMINER brand, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Russian company's registration. The court recognized that "ANTMINER" was a well-known foreign brand in the cryptocurrency and blockchain sector, and its registration by a Russian company with no connection to the brand constituted an abuse of rights. Consequently, the registration was fully invalidated, restoring Bitmain's exclusive rights on the Russian market. This case underscores that while the path to challenging a bad-faith registration is demanding, Russian courts provide effective protection for legitimate rightsholders who present compelling evidence and pursue their rights systematically.
Effective Rights Enforcement After Registration
The WANLINING case (A40-208337/2020) illustrates the nuanced and balanced approach Russian courts can take in trademark enforcement matters. The dispute emerged from a classic parallel import scenario: the plaintiff was Import Group LLC, a Russian entity that held the formal Russian trademark registration for "WANLINING," while the defendant, Khodyvie Shiny LLC, had imported genuine tires manufactured by the Chinese company Qingdao Wanlining Rubber Group. When the Russian trademark owner sought an injunction and significant compensation amounting to approximately $60,000 for alleged infringement, the case presented the court with competing interests between formal trademark rights and market realities. The court's ruling ultimately reflected a sophisticated balancing of these interests.
While the decision formally recognized infringement based on the unauthorized use of the registered trademark - thereby affirming the fundamental principle of trademark protection - the remedies awarded demonstrated the judiciary's willingness to consider equitable factors. The court granted the injunction to prevent further imports but reduced the claimed compensation by approximately 90% to about $5,000. This substantial reduction was based on several key considerations documented in the proceedings: the defendant had not actually sold the imported goods in Russia, had ceased all contested activities immediately upon receiving formal notification, did not engage in trademark use as a core business activity, and operated without evidence of gross negligence or fault. The ruling confirms that Russian courts carefully weigh all circumstances to deliver fair and proportionate remedies.
In contrast, the ZEMIC case (A41-83100/2019) provides a comprehensive example of a clear-cut legal victory and how properly registered rights can be decisively enforced against unauthorized importers. Zhonghang Electronic Measuring Instruments Co., Ltd. (ZEMIC), having secured international trademark registration protection in Russia, discovered that two Russian companies, Hydrotorg Ltd. and Spetsstroyservice Ltd., were systematically importing and selling products bearing the ZEMIC trademark without authorization. The Chinese company undertook a methodical enforcement campaign, beginning with notarized test purchases to establish evidence of the infringement, followed by formal cease and desist letters, and ultimately filing a civil action for trademark infringement. The Russian importers mounted a vigorous defense, arguing that the goods were genuine products manufactured by ZEMIC and legally purchased abroad, and that trademark rights should be considered exhausted. However, the courts systematically rejected this defense, applying Russia's principle of national exhaustion. This legal doctrine stipulates that a trademark owner's rights are exhausted only for goods that have been introduced into the Russian market with its direct consent. Since the importers could not provide any evidence of such consent from ZEMIC for the specific goods in question, their actions constituted clear infringement. The court awarded ZEMIC substantial compensation for the violation of its exclusive rights, demonstrating the full effectiveness of the Russian legal system in enforcing the rights of foreign trademark owners who have taken the proper steps to secure and defend their IP assets.
Conclusion
For Chinese companies entering the Russian market, developing a comprehensive intellectual property strategy is a fundamental requirement for long-term success. While the Russian legal system provides robust IP safeguards, its full protection is extended only to rights holders who adopt a systematic and proactive strategy.
The first priority is to establish a solid legal foundation for key business assets. This begins with conducting thorough trademark searches and proceeding with the registration of all key brand elements, including names, logos, and their Cyrillic versions. Taking this step before starting commercial activities helps prevent potential conflicts and creates a reliable basis for further market expansion.
Effective brand protection, however, does not end with registration. It requires ongoing management and a readiness to enforce IP rights when necessary. Ultimately, a well-constructed IP strategy serves as more than just legal protection—it becomes a valuable business asset that enhances competitive position and supports sustainable growth. By making intellectual property management an integral part of their business planning, Chinese companies can confidently build their presence and maximize opportunities on the Russian market.
