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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article