TRADEMARK SQUATTING IN RUSSIA

INTRODUCTION

In Russia, copyright and intellectual rights are under attack.

In reaction to Russia's violent incursion of Ukraine, the Us and other Western nations put harsh financial international sanctions. These restrictions have had a significant impact on the economy of Russia, but the repercussions are now being felt by international enterprises with copyrights, brands, or other copyrighted material in Russia. Russia has gained a prominent effort to legalize intellectual property theft owned by corporations operating in "hostile nations."

RUSSIAN STATE TELEVISION THREATS

The Russian-state media outlet TASS stated in early March that Russia was threatened to restrict patent and trademark rights of firms that were terminating operation in Russia or were involved with "sanctioned items."

The statement was released in reaction to dozens of firms' opportunity to enter in the penalties. It was also an early indication that Russian organizations may be allowed to exploit those corporations' copyrights and trademarks without fear of legal repercussions.

A RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ORDER INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS

Russia followed through on its promise to freeze proprietary information by issuing an order stating that copyright holders from "extremely hostile" nations would not be eligible for reimbursement or injuries arising from "specific provisions" given to patents.

As of the posting of this post, the Russian government might rule that any copyright possessed in Russia is required for global defense (or the other purpose) and grant rights to a Russian corporation to utilize the invention without fear of being sued or having to pay licensing costs.

PEPPA PIG IS DEFEATED IN COURT

The erosion of patent rights in Russia was highlighted further when a lawsuit to infringement of trademark featuring the cartoon character Peppa Pig was granted in a Russian court.

The victim was a Russian businessman who had been utilizing both Peppa Pig and Daddy Pig copyrights. The court found that the cartoon figure may be used freely and dismissed the complaint, citing "unfriendly conduct of the U.S.A. and allied foreign nations" as grounds.

The Peppa Pig ruling made a lot of people nervous because it signaled that the courts were likely instructed to start allowing piracy and violation of intellectual properties held by Western firms.

MCDONALD’S IS THE TARGET OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

For more than 30 years, McDonald's has become one of Russia's most popular and recognizable Western products. It has a unique place in the hearts of the Russian people because it was one of the first American enterprises to set up a company in the Soviet Union. Long lineups of people may often be seen outside of its eateries.

In reaction to the Ukraine war, the firm temporarily shut down the majority of its 850 outlets, with just about 100 franchise owner eateries remaining operational.

The answer was swift, as a trademark registration for the McDonald's emblem was submitted under the name "Uncle Vanya." The resemblance between the logos is both basic and obvious: The famous golden arch has been flipped on their side, with a bar of gold going down the left to represent the Cyrillic word "B." The letter "V" is its English equivalent.

Previously, the Russian Duma proposed that all McDonald's restaurants be substituted by the Uncle Vanya name. It is more probable, however, that the petition was lodged by a copyright squatter.

Squatters think in this manner. Someone may have overheard a parliamentarian discussing turning McDonald's into Uncle Vanya and thought to themselves, "I've got a terrific idea." Allow me to submit a patent application for it, and I'll sell it to anyone."

Without copyright protections, Russia may take over the closed McDonald's and allow local entrepreneurs to manage the locations. If you're Vladimir Putin and want to make a statement, you'll just find somebody to transform these McDonald's into something far more Russian.

It will be fascinating to see if the application form is approved by Russia's trademarks authority. Before to the Ukraine crisis, it was usual for the Russian patent office to reject trademark that were too similar to other marks, including those of Western firms. We'll have to keep an eye about how this request is handled from now on.

McDonald's commitment in Russia is at danger of being severely harmed. It is unknown when the corporation will be able to restart its locations, if ever.

RUSSIAN COPYRIGHT SQUATTERS HAVE BEGUN TO TARGET OTHER WESTERN BUSINESS AS WELL

Russian copyright squatters are on the rampage. Trademark applications have been submitted for:

• IDEA Furniture Manufacturing Company (with the IKEA logo).

• Instagram 

• Rustagram 

• Starbucks

When these cases are considered in conjunction with the Peppa Pig ruling, it becomes evident that the capacity to maintain copyrights in Russian courts may be rapidly evaporating.

Furthermore, Russian attorneys may desire to avoid the impression of sympathizing with Western interests. Not only are the court likely to be skewed against brand owners, but the firms may not have lawyers ready to assist them because they are concerned about their own safety.

PROSECUTORS IN RUSSIA HAVE THREATENED TO TAKE ASSETS

In addition to allowing intellectual property theft, Russian authorities have warned to seize assets of firms who discontinue doing business in a country, according to the Wall Street Journal.

This creates an awkward quandary: If a firm might make a loss or share price if its intellectual property as well as other assets are taken in Russia, would it need to prioritize value for shareholders over moral duty?

The horrors of the conflict are so heinous that many corporations (like McDonald's) tend to believe that the danger of doing business in Russia exceeds the possible drop in the value from getting their copyrights and patents taken. This is crucial because such a danger forces firms, who have a duty towards their shareholders, to reconsider further alienating Russia.

CONCLUSION

These implementations would generally fall tidily within in the domain of trademarks slouching (the practice of 3rd parties able to file trademarks for yet another firm's well-identified marks, generally in an industry in which the patent holder is not (yet) revealed, with the goal either of trying to extort the actual brand holder or otherwise trying to capitalize on the appellate court of that brand for their own gain) and/or knowingly false trademark filing, and would be precluded from enrollment by the pertinent trademark authority. However, it will not always be the case in this case.

Written by: 

Ishani Khanna