By the decision of the Presidium of the Intellectual Property Court of 16 May 2023 in case N С01-593/2023, the Court confirmed the decision of the lower instance to cancel the legal protection of a trademark. This is a rather interesting case from a practical point of view, where even the existence of a number of trademarks did not help the company to defend its rights in order to ensure the continuation of one of its trademarks.

The third party holding the exclusive right to a trademark with an earlier priority filed an opposition with the Chamber for Patent Disputes to have the company's trademark with a later priority declared invalid on the grounds of similarity. The opposition was granted. The company whose trademark was declared invalid filed an application with the Intellectual Property Court to challenge the non-normative act of the Chamber for Patent Disputes. In its defense, the company argued that they had a number of trademarks registered in Russia for identical goods, and that the third party who objected to the registration of the disputed trademark was not itself using its confusingly similar trademark, unlike the company. The company also tried to prove to the court that the third party's actions constituted unfair competition. Despite all these arguments, first the Intellectual Property Court and then the Presidium of the Intellectual Property Court supported the position of the Chamber for Patent Disputes.

The Presidium of the Intellectual Property Court confirmed that the fact that the company is the owner of a number of trademarks does not affect the conclusions on the incompatibility of the disputed designation with the requirements of the law. Moreover, as a general rule, the fact of non-use of a trademark is established in a dispute on a claim against the owner for early termination of the protection of the designation due to non-use. Thus, the Presidium of the Intellectual Property Court emphasized that the series of trademarks, as well as the circumstances of their use, do not play a role in defending the rights to the disputed trademark.