Russia: Manchester in London, Chicago in St Petersburg

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Russia: Manchester in London, Chicago in St Petersburg

J.S.S.Tobacco Ltd., a London company, filed a trademark application with the Russian Patents and Trademarks Office

manchester-96.jpg

The application was refused because the examiner opined that the word element "Manchester", a city in North West England points to the place of production of the goods or the location of the applicant.

At the time of filing the trademark application, the address of the applicant was indicated as "London". The word element of the trademark "Manchester" is also a city. Hence, it was stated in the decision of the patent office that this was misleading for consumers with regard to the location of the manufacturer of goods or their place of production.

The applicant understood the situation and appealed the decision. He informed the patent office in his appeal that his address had changed to Centenary Way, Trafford Park, Manchester, M50 1RF. The Chamber of Patent Disputes stated that the applicant exercised his right and made amendments to his trademark application. The change of address removed the reasons for rejecting the trademark application so that the Chamber could recognise that the registration did not contradict the law. The Chamber pointed out that the word element "Manchester" is part of the claimed designation. It is the name of the city in England and characterises the place for production of goods. Hence the registration should be allowed.

In connection with this, one may recall another registration, Chicago LLC.

chicago.jpg

The registration was refused and appealed by the applicant at the same Chamber of Patent Disputes. At that time, it was decided that the word "Chicago" would not mislead consumers (visitors of the beauty parlour) even though the applicant did not change his place of residence (Sankt-Petersburg, Russia).

In the "Manchester" case, the applicant found an easy way to obviate the risk of refusal.

biriulin.jpg

Vladimir Biriulin

Gorodissky & Partners

Russia 129010, Moscow

B. Spasskaya Str

25, stroenie 3

Tel: +7 495 937 6116 / 6109

Fax: +7 495 937 6104 / 6123

pat@gorodissky.ru 

www.gorodissky.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As global commerce continues to expand through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces, protecting brands has become a growing challenge for organisations worldwide. Counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, and online brand abuse are increasing across industries, making brand protection strategies a critical priority for businesses.
Henrik Holzapfel and Chuck Larsen of McDermott Will & Schulte explain why a Court of Appeal ruling could promote access to justice and present a growth opportunity for litigation finance
A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
News of Avanci hiring a senior vice president and the EPO teaming up with a French AI startup were also among the top talking points
Explosm, the independent Texas studio behind the hit webcomic Cyanide & Happiness, partnered with Temu’s IP protection team to combat counterfeiters infringing on its brand
The latest in a dispute over juicing machines, and a shakeup in judicial compositions were also among the top developments
Patent partner Robert Hollingshead explains why the firm remains committed to Japan despite several US firms exiting the Japanese and greater Asia market
Emma Green, partner at Bird & Bird, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement
Gift this article