IP office refuses Putin

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

IP office refuses Putin

Sponsored by

gorodissky-400px.png
Moscow Kremlin, Kremlin Embankment and Moscow River in Moscow, Russia. Architecture and landmark of Moscow

An individual entrepreneur filed a trademark application no 2018755695. The trademark application is a combined designation as below.

russia-image001.jpg

It includes a black horizontal rectangle with a word element "ПУТИНА" ("Putina") above which there is a non-protectable word element "gastrobar" with diamond-shaped geometrical figures on the sides. In Russian, Putin+a is the word "Putin" in the genitive case.

The IP office refused registration because the designation is not in the public interest. The decision of the IP office was motivated by the fact that the claimed designation includes a word element "Putina" (the genitive form of "Putin") which is phonetically similar to the name of the Russian president and may be understood as meaning "Gastrobar belonging to Putin." Thus, the claimed designation was categorised among designations which may provoke the indignation of the public because of the inclusion therein of the name of a well-known political figure.

The applicant appealed the decision of the IP office. He argued that the word "Putina" was perceived by the examiner exclusively as a name, though it is also possible to draw the conclusion, based on various sources, that the word "Putina" (in Russian) in most cases means "the time or season of fishing" (https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc3p/247954). In this case, an accent should be included on the second syllable – putína. According to him, the consumer would not associate the name Putin with the activities of the applicant (in Class 43), and would not associate that word with a specific person providing such services.

The applicant also argued that registration of the claimed designation was possible in respect of another applicant who was not President Putin, and he referred to the registered trademark no 304803 – "ПУТЍНА" in Class 43 (accent on the second syllable). The applicant asked the Chamber of Patent Disputes to maintain unified practice and abide by the principle of equality of parties.

The Collegium of the Chamber was not convinced by the applicant's arguments. It referred to the rules forbidding state registration of designations contradicting public interest, humanitarian principles and morals. Protection was sought in relation to services in Class 43. These are self-service restaurants and similar services.

The Collegium agreed that the word "putina" may have other meanings. However, the name of the Russian president comes to mind in the first place. As a result, the appeal was refused without comments with regard to the registered trademark no 304803 – "Putina."

It should be pointed out that this was not the only applicant wishing to ride on the popularity of a well-known name and not the only example of the IP office issuing contradictory decisions. For example, there is a trademark registration no 577881 for caviar 

russia-image002.jpg
and no 622512 for cigarettes, etc.

russia-image003.jpg

with no connection to fishing. There is also a vodka reminiscent of the same name

russia-image004.jpg
.

russia-image005.jpg

If we go back in time we shall also find registration no 461393 for alcoholic beverages. The trademark reads "Volodya y Medvedy" ("Volodya and Bears"). It obviously references Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev.

russia-image006.jpg

The trademark dates back to 2009 when Vladimir Putin was prime minister and Dmitry Medvedev was president. Volodya is a colloquial substitute for Vladimir and Medvedev is a nominal derivative of the word "bear."

Several trademarks hinting to such VIPs were registered so it is not clear why the office took this stance towards a seemingly inoffensive designation.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A $110 million US verdict against Apple and an appellate order staying a $39 million trademark infringement finding against Amazon were also among the top talking points
Attorneys are watching how AI affects trademark registrations and whether a SCOTUS ruling from last year will have broader free speech implications
Patent lawyers explain why they will be keeping an eye on the implications of a pharma case and on changes at the USPTO in the second half of 2025
The insensitive reaction to a UK politician crying on TV proves we have a long way to go before we can say we are tackling workplace wellbeing
Adrian Percer says he was impressed by the firm’s work on billion-dollar cases as well as its culture
In our latest interview with women IP leaders, Catherine Bonner at Murgitroyd discusses technology, training, and teaching
Developments included an update in the VAR dispute between Ballinno and UEFA, the latest CMS updates, and a swathe of market moves
The LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards is thrilled to present the 2025 shortlist
A new order has brought the total security awarded to a Canadian tech company to $45 million, the highest-ever by an Indian court in an IP case
Andrew Blattman reflects on how IP practices have changed and shares his hopes for increased AI use and better performance on the stock market
Gift this article