loader image
+436705540112
Main page
|
News
|
The Russian Intellectual Property Court upholds Rospatent’s refusal to register “Dr Pepper” trademarks for FoodWay LLC
The Russian Intellectual Property Court upholds Rospatent’s refusal to register “Dr Pepper” trademarks for FoodWay LLC
The Russian Intellectual Property Court upholds Rospatent’s refusal to register “Dr Pepper” trademarks for FoodWay LLC

The Russian Intellectual Property Court upholds Rospatent’s refusal to register “Dr Pepper” trademarks for FoodWay LLC

The Intellectual Property Court of the Russian Federation has issued a definitive ruling in case No. SIP-44/2025, completely dismissing the claims of the company FoodWay LLC and affirming the legality of Rospatent’s refusal to register the trademarks “Dr Pepper” (Latin script) and “Др Пеппер” (Cyrillic transliteration). The court’s decision reinforces stringent protections against consumer confusion in trademark registration matters.

Detailed case background

The Russian company FoodWay LLC, an enterprise specializing in beverage importation and distribution, filed two trademark applications with Rospatent: No. 2022715182 (filed March 11, 2022) and No. 2022772815 (filed October 12, 2022).

Both applications sought protection for Class 32 goods under the International Classification of Goods and Services, encompassing various non-alcoholic beverages including carbonated drinks, lemonades, and energy drinks. Rospatent’s initial refusal cited violation of subclause 1 of Article 1483 (3) of the Civil Code, specifically that registration would likely mislead consumers regarding product manufacturer, since soft drinks under “Dr Pepper” brand have been known in Russia and abroad for a long time.

Comprehensive legal arguments

FoodWay LLC’s position:

The company FoodWay LLC presented a multifaceted challenge, arguing that Rospatent:

1. Failed to establish association with a specific manufacturer, maintaining that general consumer awareness of the goods doesn’t prove misleading nature of the mark;

2. Ignored the historical precedent of multiple rights holders for the trademark in Russia;

3. Relied on sociologically flawed research (referencing FCTAS RAS Study No. 98-2022) with methodological deficiencies and potential respondent duplication;

4. Based decisions on unverified internet sources lacking evidentiary reliability;

5. Overlooked their good faith intentions following the previous rights holder’s voluntary trademark abandonment.

Rospatent’s defense with third party intervention:

The Rospatent, supported by European Refreshments Unlimited (Coca-Cola affiliate), demonstrated:

1. Overwhelming consumer association (55-66%) between “Dr Pepper” and Coca-Cola through:

– E-commerce platform evidence (Ozon, Wildberries, Metro);

– Consumer reviews dating to 2012 (otzovik.com, irecommend.ru);

– Corroborated sociological research findings;

2. Continuous market presence since the brand’s introduction to Russian market in 1996;

3. No evident consumer association between the trademarks and the company FoodWay LLC;

4. Evidence suggesting attempted trademark appropriation without brand development investment.

The court’s comprehensive review concluded:

1. Consumer association established: The evidence conclusively showed persistent consumer identification of “Dr Pepper” with Coca-Cola products, regardless of current market presence.

2. Methodological validation: The sociological study’s methodology withstood scrutiny, with alleged irregularities being statistically insignificant within the 1,500-respondent sample.

3. Internet evidence admissibility: Publicly available online information constituted valid evidence for establishing brand notoriety and consumer perception.

4. Lack of counterevidence: The company FoodWay LLC failed to provide substantive proof of consumer association with their company or products.

5. Potential rights abuse: The timing and circumstances suggested possible attempted exploitation of the trademark’s established reputation.

This ruling reinforces several key principles in Russian trademark law:

  • Famous trademarks maintain protection regardless of current market activity;
  • Consumer perception outweighs formal ownership history in confusion cases;
  • Internet sources constitute valid evidence for establishing notoriety;
  • Transliterated trademarks are treated as equivalent to original versions;
  • Good faith requirements extend beyond formal legal compliance.

The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preventing consumer confusion and protecting established brand identities, serving as a significant precedent for future trademark disputes involving famous international trademarks on the Russian market.