Aside from the letter of consent, it provided also an extract from the French Commercial Register. In principle, the Chamber of Patent Disputes is not obliged to accept the letter of consent in all cases. It examines all evidence on file. According to the law (Article 1483 of the Civil Code) designations cannot be registered as trademarks if they are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks registered in Russia and belonging to other persons. There are also Russia’s trademark rules. According to the rules, a designation is considered confusingly similar to another designation if it is associated with it in general despite some differences. This is a very important provision that allows the examiner to liberally evaluate the similarity of designations. Further, if there is a combined designation it shall be compared with a combined designation and also with other designations included in the examined designation as its element.
The Collegium of the Chamber of Patent Disputes examined in detail the differences and similarities of the compared designations and confirmed that the claimed designations and the cited trademarks were similar and the examiner of the patent office was correct in rejecting the application but at that time there was no letter of consent.
But, the applicant obtained written approval for registration from the owner of the cited trademarks. The Collegium noted that registration of a similar designation can be allowed in such circumstances if such registration does not mislead consumers. The Collegium pointed out that the compared designations are not identical, nor are they famous or collective trademarks, and so therefore the claimed designation will not be misleading. As a result, the appeal of the Chinese company was satisfied.
The takeaway from this situation is that when a business comes to Russia it should register in advance a trademark for the goods it intends to sell. But, before that, it is necessary to check whether its trademark may collide with another trademark on the market. For that purpose it is advisable to conduct a search among similar trademarks if they exist at all, and if necessary ask for a letter of consent well in advance.
This approach may save a lot of time and money for the business.
Collisions between trademarks may have different aspects. Another similar situation but with many overtones lasted for several years from 2021 to 2025.
Shijiazhuang Dragonhawk Industry Co., a manufacturer of tattoo machines, was selling its goods to Russia on the internet and also supplied the products to individual consumers. The products of the company were labelled with a designation
. That designation was registered as a trademark in many countries but not in Russia. After a time, the Chinese company decided to register its trademark in Russia and failed. Among buyers of the tattoo machines, there was BRECE, a Russian company. It had filed a trademark application for before the Chinese company and obtained registration No. 869559. Immediately after registration of the trademark, BRECE sent warning letters to other companies selling the products and in the absence of their reaction sued them in court. As a result of several moves, BRECE was able to seriously disrupt sales of the products by other vendors.
The Chinese company tried to cancel the registration of the trademark, complaining to the Chamber of Patent Disputes. The Chamber examined the arguments of the Chinese company and concluded that the designation “MAST” is not perceived by Russian consumers as related to the Chinese company and even accused it of abuse of rights. The appeal was refused by the decision dated August 25, 2023.
The Chinese company filed a complaint to Russia’s antimonopoly body (FAS) accusing BRECE of unfair competition, and FAS recognized the behaviour of BRECE as unfair competition. Further, the Chinese company again appealed against the registration of the trademark, this time on the basis of the FAS decision. The Chamber of Patent Disputes examined the case and recounted all arguments contained in the FAS decision. It also recalled Article 10bis of the Paris Convention forbidding unfair competition. The arguments of that decision were sufficient for the Chamber of Patent Disputes to invalidate the trademark in respect of all goods on January 29, 2025.
In parallel with the complaint to the antimonopoly body, the Chinese company sued the Chamber of Patent Disputes in order to invalidate its decision of August 25, 2023. Examination of the suit was suspended pending the decision of the antimonopoly body. After its decision, the court examined the case and also invalidated the trademark the next day (January 30, 2025) not knowing that the trademark had been invalidated by the Chamber of Patent Disputes the day before.
Many details of this case were omitted for the sake of brevity but the conclusion is again the same: before coming to the Russian market any company should register its IP. The fight against pirated registration lasted for years and it may be surmised that the fight was not cheap.
No. 1765614 in respect of the goods in Class 09. It is a relatively fresh registration dated September 27, 2023. 
- IR No 1432360, 
- IR No 1432278, 
- 1403770, “MY AUCHAN” – IR No 1349867, “AUCHAN CITY” – IR No 1039139, 
- IR No626147, “AUCHAN” – IR No 625533. Those trademarks were also registered in Class 09. As can be seen, the French company built solid defenses against possible hostile registrations. The Chinese company reserved a trump card up its sleeve. It appealed the decision of the patent office at the Chamber of Patent Disputes. It claimed that the French company ELO does not consider the series of its trademarks as confusingly similar to the applied and rejected designation. To support its claim the Chinese company had in store a letter of consent from ELO. 
