Tie the application to a real textile business
We documented the client’s textile production and sales, online store, domain name, branded products and vehicles, and the pending RUTEX application.
Case study · Russia · Trademarks
Clearing the way for RUTEX.
We secured early termination of protection for an identical earlier trademark on grounds of non-use, then obtained registration of RUTEX in Russia for the client’s textile business.
ClientTextile manufacturer and retailer
MatterCase No. SIP-1011/2025
Blocking rightRUTEX No. 569154
Final resultEarly termination and registration
The obstacle
One identical mark stood between the client and protection.
The client used RUTEX for textiles, owned the rutex.ru domain and filed Russian application No. 2025772242 for Class 24 goods and Class 35 services.
Our clearance review identified the blocking registration before Rospatent formally cited it in the examination notice of 11 December 2025. Rospatent treated the earlier RUTEX trademark No. 569154 as the only obstacle. The marks were identical, and the registered goods and services overlapped the client’s textile production, sales and related commercial activity.
The earlier record had also passed through a chain of corporate reorganisations. Identifying the correct respondent, verifying the register details and serving the mandatory pre-action proposal on the proper addressees became part of the litigation strategy, not mere administration.
The practical objective was clear: remove the unused right for the exact goods and services blocking the client’s application, without losing the filing timetable.
Our strategy
Build standing, control the timetable, test real use.
An early termination claim for non-use is won on the connection between the claimant’s commercial interest, the statutory sequence and the owner’s evidence for the exact registered items.
Serve the Article 1486 proposal correctly
We sent the mandatory proposal to the registered owner, the recorded correspondence address and the corporate successor, then preserved postal and delivery evidence.
Separate claimed use from protected goods
The owner relied on RUTEX respirators and medical masks. We focused the court on the registered scope: textiles in Class 24 and business services in Class 35.
Carry the first-instance win through review
After the Intellectual Property Court granted the claim, we defended the result before the Presidium as another corporate succession changed the opposing party.
Result
The blocker fell. RUTEX was registered.
The court terminated protection of No. 569154 for all challenged Class 24 goods and Class 35 services. Rospatent then registered the client’s RUTEX mark as No. 1207263.
Earlier mark terminatedProtection of No. 569154 ended for all challenged Class 24 goods and Class 35 services.
RUTEX No. 1207263 registeredRegistered on 2 April 2026 with priority from 10 July 2025.
Judgment upheld on cassationThe Presidium left the first-instance judgment unchanged.
Matter timeline
From filing to a final cassation win.
2025
Client files RUTEX application No. 2025772242
The filing covered textile goods in Class 24 and retail, promotion and related services in Class 35.
2025
Mandatory proposal sent
The two-month Article 1486 waiting period and the following court filing window were docketed from the proposal date.
2025
Rospatent confirms the exact obstacle
The examination notice treated No. 569154 as the sole barrier and confirmed similarity and homogeneous Class 24 and 35 items.
2026
IP Court orders early termination for non-use
The owner did not prove qualifying use for the challenged textile goods and business services.
2026
RUTEX registration No. 1207263
The client’s trademark was registered for Classes 24 and 35 with priority from 10 July 2025.
2026
Presidium leaves the judgment unchanged
The cassation court confirmed that respirators and medical masks did not prove use for the protected textile goods or Class 35 services.
Key point
Use must match the registered scope.
Use for unrelated goods is not enough.
The opposing party showed RUTEX use for respirators or medical masks. But the challenged registration covered Class 24 textiles and Class 35 business services. The court required use tied to those goods and services — and found none.
Matter led by Ramzan Khusainov, Managing Partner, Russian Trademark Attorney.
Trademark non-use cancellation
Need to remove a blocking Russian trademark?
We assess standing, calculate the pre-action timetable, prepare the evidence and conduct the claim before the Intellectual Property Court.
This case study describes a completed matter and is provided for general information. Results depend on the facts, evidence and procedural history of each case.