IP in Russia: Facts, fiction and strategic guidance

Global stakeholders face a fundamentally altered risk profile in the country—but engaging is vital to protect rights, says Riikka Palmos of Papula-Nevinpat.

Russia’s intellectual property (IP) system is often viewed through sharply contrasting narratives.

One view suggests that IP rights have effectively ceased to exist in Russia. Another assumes that foreign rights holders can safely ignore the market because sanctions and geopolitical developments have fundamentally altered the legal landscape.

Neither view fully reflects the current situation. In 2026, Russia’s IP system continues to function. At the same time, foreign rights holders face practical challenges that make the maintenance and enforcement of IP considerably more demanding than before 2022.

The most important question for international businesses is therefore not whether IP rights still exist in Russia, but whether they are prepared to manage those rights actively.

Fact: Russia’s IP system continues to operate

One of the most common assumptions is that sanctions have rendered IP protection ineffective in Russia. This is not the case.

Rospatent continues to process applications, while courts continue to hear cases concerning the validity of IP rights. Foreign applicants continue to maintain protection through both national and international registrations.

Recent filing activity also demonstrates that IP remains commercially relevant for both domestic and foreign businesses.

Moreover, it is not accurate to suggest that all foreign companies have left the Russian market. While many international businesses have suspended, reduced or restructured their operations, numerous foreign brands remain active. Others continue to maintain IP portfolios even where commercial operations are limited. The increase in foreign trademark filings and re-filings demonstrates that many businesses still consider Russian IP rights worth preserving.

For some companies, Russia remains an active market. For others, maintaining IP protection is about preserving future strategic options.

Fiction: Withdrawing from the market eliminates IP risk

A common assumption is that companies that have reduced their commercial activities in Russia face fewer IP risks. In reality, the opposite may be true.

Businesses that have withdrawn or scaled back operations often face increased exposure to non-use cancellation actions, bad-faith trademark filings and unauthorised use of their brands.

Russian trademark law continues to require genuine use. A trademark may become vulnerable to cancellation if it is not used for a continuous three-year period. Importantly, sanctions and geopolitical circumstances are generally not accepted as automatic justification for non-use.

As a result, many companies have discovered that withdrawing from the market does not eliminate IP obligations.

The rise of non-use cancellation actions

The most significant trademark development in Russia during 2025 and 2026 has been the growing number of cancellation actions based on non-use.

Many of these actions target foreign-owned trademarks and seek to remove earlier rights that prevent the registration of similar signs. Recent statistics indicate a significant increase in such proceedings.

At first glance, this trend appeared highly problematic for foreign rights holders. However, recent Intellectual Property Court decisions have introduced an important nuance.

The IP Court has increasingly examined whether claimants genuinely possess a legitimate commercial interest in obtaining cancellation. In several high-profile disputes involving internationally recognised brands, the IP Court focused not only on the question whether the claimant was acting in good faith or merely attempting to exploit the reputation of an established foreign mark.

The Nokia (SIP-802/2024), Michelin (SIP-801/2024), Hugo Boss (SIP-1315/2024) and Ray-Ban (SIP-582/2025) cases illustrate this development. In all instances, the IP Court examined the claimant’s interest and broader commercial objectives. Claims were dismissed where the claimant failed to demonstrate a bona fide commercial interest or where the action was considered abusive. In some cases, the IP Court did not even proceed to assess whether the trademark had been used.

This is an important development and provides a degree of protection against opportunistic challenges. At the same time, other non-use actions have succeeded where trademark use could not be established and the claimant demonstrated a legitimate commercial interest. Rights holders should therefore not view the recent case law as a guarantee. Non-use remains a genuine risk where evidence of use is unavailable or insufficient.

Parallel import nuances

Another area frequently misunderstood by international observers is parallel imports.

Russia has not introduced full international exhaustion of trademark rights. Instead, it operates a selective parallel import regime under which only specific products included in an official government list may be imported without the consent of the trademark owner. Products outside that list remain subject to ordinary trademark protection.

This distinction has important practical consequences. A rights holder may enjoy strong control over one product category while facing reduced control over another. The legal position depends not only on the trademark itself but also on whether the relevant products are included in the current parallel import framework.

Furthermore, the parallel import framework is not developing solely in the direction of liberalisation. In May 2026, more than 30 categories of products were removed from the parallel import list, restoring greater control to trademark owners in those sectors. This demonstrates that the framework remains dynamic and requires ongoing monitoring.

New enforcement battleground

Online marketplaces have become one of the most important fronts in IP enforcement.

Platforms such as Ozon, Wildberries and Yandex Market host both lawful parallel-imported goods and counterfeit products, often within the same product categories. This creates a significantly more complicated enforcement environment than traditional anticounterfeiting work. Rights holders must distinguish between genuine goods entering the market through unofficial channels and genuinely infringing products.

The challenge is compounded by fragmented seller networks.

There are, however, signs of progress. Since April 2026, marketplaces have been granted direct access to Rospatent databases, enabling earlier verification of IP rights. Together with broader platform reforms scheduled for October 2026, these measures may gradually move enforcement away from a purely reactive system. Whether they will materially reduce infringement remains to be seen.

The overlooked challenge

For many foreign rights holders, the greatest practical challenge is no longer registration but evidence. Before 2022, proving trademark use was often straightforward. Goods moved through established distribution channels and documentation was generally available.

Today, products may reach Russia through indirect routes, distribution arrangements may have changed, and supporting documentation may be fragmented across multiple jurisdictions. In some situations, companies possess evidence that their products are being sold in the market but face greater difficulties proving admissible use under trademark law.

This evidentiary challenge plays a central role in non-use disputes and has become one of the key practical concerns for international brand owners.

Strategic guidance

The businesses that have been most successful in protecting their IP rights in Russia generally follow one principle: remain engaged.

Practical measures include monitoring trademark registers, maintaining evidence of use, reviewing licensing arrangements, recording assignments where appropriate, monitoring marketplace activity and assessing whether defensive re-filings may be justified for key brands. Companies should also ensure that IP strategy remains coordinated with compliance, legal and commercial decision-making.

Particular attention should be paid to trademarks that may become vulnerable to non-use cancellation actions. Rights holders should regularly assess whether sufficient evidence of use exists and, where appropriate, consider supplementary filing strategies to safeguard key brands and future business options.

Russia’s IP landscape in 2026 is neither the environment that existed before 2022 nor a system in which IP rights have ceased to function.

Perhaps the biggest misconception about Russia is not that IP rights have disappeared, but that they continue automatically. Businesses that actively manage their portfolios can often preserve valuable rights and future strategic options. Those that disengage entirely may discover that rebuilding an IP position is considerably more difficult than maintaining one.

Takeaways
•  Russia’s IP system remains operational
•  Engagement mitigates withdrawal risks
•  Evidence is critical

Rikka Palmos is a European trademark attorney, senior partner and head of the Legal Team at Papula-Nevinpat in Helsinki. She can be contacted at riikka.palmos@papula-nevinpat.com