Navigating Russia’s Rules on Trademark Letters of Consent

In what cases is a letter of consent required when registering trademarks in Russia, and what are the requirements for such documents?

The most common case involves a problem with the registration of a trademark that is confusingly similar to a mark with earlier priority. The main question is whether the earlier trademark holder should give consent.

On the one hand, providing a letter of consent can be undesirable because registering a similar trademark could dilute the prior trademark if the companies operate in closely related fields.

A second risk associated with providing a letter of consent may be the problems related to the activities of the party to whom the letter of consent is provided, such as substandard service or poor-quality goods, which could negatively impact the reputation of the holder of a similar, prior trademark. Therefore, when deciding whether to issue a letter of consent, one must seriously consider the possibility of reputational risks.

On the other hand, if an owner refuses to grant a letter of consent, the applicant seeking to register a similar mark may undertake an offensive action against the prior trademark, such as initiating a non-use cancellation action (provided that the three-year grace period for non-use has expired). This may be successful if, for one reason or another, the prior trademark is not being used, is only being used for some goods or services, is being used in a form substantially different from the registered version, or if the use is carried out by another party not under the trademark owner’s control.

Thus, the most common scenario for the provision of a letter of consent involves a trademark registration issue where a trademark is confusingly similar to a prior trademark that has been applied for or registered for similar goods or services. This scenario is governed by Article 1483 § 6 (1 and 2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which states that:

“Designations may not be registered as trademarks if they are identical to or confusingly similar to:

1. Trademarks of other parties that have been applied for registration (Article 1492) in respect of similar goods and enjoying an earlier priority, provided that the application for registration of the trademark has not been withdrawn, has not been considered as withdrawn, and no decision on refusal to register has been made;
2. Trademarks of other parties that are protected in the Russian Federation, including under an international treaty to which the Russian Federation is a party in respect of similar goods and that enjoy an earlier priority…”

Nevertheless, the law permits registering a similar trademark for similar goods or services with the trademark owner’s consent, provided that such registration does not mislead consumers.

In other words, submission of a letter of consent from the owner of the conflicting prior trademark is not a guarantee that the examiner will take it into account and eventually lift the objection based on citation of the prior right. Given this risk, when drafting consent letters, it would be advisable to specify (where appropriate) that the owner of the prior trademark and the applicant operate in different fields and that they are confident that consumers cannot be misled as to the manufacturer of the goods or the company providing the services.

It should be emphasised that if the obstacle to the registration of a trademark is its similarity to a wellknown or collective mark, it will not be possible to overcome this obstacle by obtaining a letter of consent from the owners of such trademarks, as the law does not provide for such a possibility.

Obtaining a letter of consent from the owner of a prior trademark will not help if the trademarks are identical, since the consent letter option applies only to similar trademarks.

However, if the decision to obtain a letter of consent is made, it is important to keep in mind that the letter must be drafted in accordance with the required conditions.

One of these is that the letter of consent is irrevocable. In other words, the consent given by the owner of the prior trademark cannot be subsequently revoked by that owner.

This provision was not initially included in the law and was introduced only after several cases in which the owner of the conflicting prior trademark initially consented to the registration of a similar trademark and then, after its registration, withdrew that consent.

There is no strictly defined format for such letters. They may be drafted in any format, but must include some essential points, namely:

Complete information about the party granting consent, sufficient to identify them as the owner of the conflicting prior trademark (their name and address); Complete information about the party to whom consent is granted, sufficient to identify them as the applicant for trademark registration (their name and address); A statement of consent from the rights holder to the registration of the applied designation as a trademark, including the application number, if assigned, and naming both the applied designation and the conflicting prior trademark. The letter of consent may contain a detailed description of the applied designation for which consent to registration as a trademark is granted, along with an attachment showing such designation, which must be signed by the same person or persons who signed the letter of consent. However, a simpler option is to include the designations and trademarks themselves in the letter of consent. Furthermore, if these designations and marks are implemented in colour, they must be reproduced in the consent letter exactly as filed or registered. A common mistake when drafting a letter of consent is to provide a verbal description of the mark or designation rather than the mark or designation itself— for example, “image of dog, and graphical symbol”, which is insufficient, and such a letter may be rejected by the examiner; A specific list of goods and/or services, in respect of which the rights holder consents to the registration of the claimed designation as a trademark; The date of execution of the document and the signature of the authorised person.

The established requirements for drafting a letter of consent should not be disregarded; otherwise, the violation of these requirements may result in dismissal of claims. The current legal approach to this issue can be illustrated by the following case from Russian judicial practice, in which the Intellectual Property Court (IPC) overturned Rospatent’s decision to grant legal protection to a trademark based on a letter of consent submitted with the application. During the review by the IPC of the claim filed by BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED and BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES INC. in opposition to the granting of legal protection to trademark under Russian Federation Certificate No. 934430, it was established that during the registration of the disputed trademark, at the examination stage, Rospatent had failed to properly verify the authority of the person who signed the letters of consent to the registration of the applied trademark. The IPC determined that the letters of consent submitted as part of the case file did not comply with the requirements established by law, as they did not contain a specific list of goods and services in respect of which they were issued, the address of the rights holder’s place of business was missing, the rights holder’s registered address did not match the information in the commercial register, there was no description of the mark for which registration was sought, the person who signed the letters of consent was not duly authorised, as was evident from the absence of supporting documents (e.g., a power of attorney), and such documents were not genuine (they did not bear the correct seals, were signed by an unauthorised person, and, in short, had not been issued by BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED).

The letter of consent may also contain other relevant information.

If a letter of consent is drawn up, for example, in the form of a contract with fixed terms, under which the rights holder consents to the registration, and which specifies the obligations of the parties and outlines the consequences of non-performance of such obligations, then it must bear the signatures of the applicant and the rights holder or their authorised representatives. However, it is important to remember that even in the event of a breach of such conditions, it will not be possible to revoke the letter of consent granted.

The original letter of consent must be provided for the document to be accepted.

A letter of consent may be signed by a representative of the owner of the prior trademark, such as corporate counsel or a trademark attorney. In such cases, it must be accompanied by a valid document confirming the representative’s authority. The letter of consent may be submitted in Russian or another language. If the letter of consent is made in a language other than Russian, a translation must be provided.

The simplest scenario is to provide a letter of consent from an affiliated company. Still, the relationship between the two companies should be stated in the letter or otherwise confirmed.

Letters of consent may be submitted not only during examination, but also when challenging a refusal decision before the Patent Disputes Chamber at the appeal stage.

Furthermore, even if a letter of consent was not submitted for the first stage during examination, it may still be submitted during the judicial review of Rospatent’s rejection decision. In such a case, it may be taken into account as a new circumstance aimed at reconciling the parties and resolving the dispute. For example, by a decision of the IPC dated 14.04.2026, Rospatent’s decision to refuse registration of trademark under trademark application No. 2024730926 was overturned on the basis of a letter of consent submitted to the case file by the owner of the conflicting prior trademarks. The letter of consent was submitted for the first time during the appeal of Rospatent’s decision before the IPC.

The Case of Recognition

The second case in which a letter of consent is required is the registration of trademarks that include, reproduce, or imitate official symbols, names, or distinguishing marks, or recognisable parts thereof.

The provisions of Russian law and the Paris Convention both provide legal protection for official state symbols and distinguishing marks, and also for the names of international or intergovernmental organisations and their official symbols and marks, when trademarks are registered.

Accordingly, designations shall not be registered as trademarks if they:

• exactly reproduce a state symbol or emblem, or imitate such a symbol or emblem;
• exactly reproduce a recognisable part of a state symbol or emblem, or imitate such a part;
• include an exact reproduction of a recognisable part of a state symbolor emblem or an imitation of such a symbol or emblem;
• include an exact reproduction of a recognisable part of a state symbol or emblem, or an imitation of such a recognisable part.

Official symbols, names, and distinguishing marks include:

1. State symbols and emblems, such as flags, coats of arms, orders, currency, etc.;
2. Abbreviated or full names of international and intergovernmental organisations, their flags, coats of arms, and other symbols and emblems;
3. Official stamps, seals, awards or other symbols denoting approvals, warranties, etc.

Official symbols, names, and distinguishing marks, as well as their recognisable parts or imitations, may be included in a trademark as a non-protectable element, provided that a letter of consent is submitted from the relevant competent state authority or authority of an international or intergovernmental organisation.

There is no specific, officially approved list of such competent authorities. They include the government authorities of the country whose national flags, coats of arms, emblems, official marks or stamps denoting approvals and warranties are incorporated into the subject of the application.

In the case of coats of arms, flags, and other emblems, as well as the abbreviated or full names of international and intergovernmental organisations, the competent authorities are the highest governing bodies of such organisations. These bodies may permit the use of official symbols, names, and distinguishing marks in trademark registration, including for the benefit of their own citizens.

In Russia, the competent authority that can grant an applicant consent to use Russian state symbols, as well as awards and other distinctions, in a proposed designation, is currently the Heraldic Council under the President of the Russian Federation, whose jurisdiction includes resolving issues related to the use of state symbols.

The Case of Similarity

The third case in which a letter of consent is required for trademark registration is the registration of designations that are identical or confusingly similar to official names and images of particularly valuable cultural heritage sites of the peoples of the Russian Federation or world cultural or natural heritage sites as well as to imageof cultural treasures held in collections, assemblies and bunds, if the registration is sought in the name of persons who are not their owners and without the consent of the owners or persons authorised by the owners or person autorised by the owners to register such designations as trademarks.

This includes images of cultural treasures held in collections, assemblies, and funds. In such a case, registration is not possible without the consent of the owner, or of a person authorised by the owner, to the registration of the designation as a trademark (consent to registration).

As applied to the Russian practice, several possible scenarios should be kept in mind:

• If the owner is an individual, consent to registration may be granted either by that individual or by a person authorised by them.
• If the property is state-owned, consent to registration may be granted by legal entities that may be considered authorised representatives of the owner, such as:
  • Organisations designated by decrees of the President of the Russian Federation as representing particularly valuable cultural heritage sites of the peoples of the Russian Federation, including those included on the World Heritage List;
  • State nature reserves and national parks, including those inscribed on the World Heritage List;
  • Government agencies (directorates) that have been granted authority by virtue of regulatory acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to manage natural parks included on the World Heritage List;
  • Cultural organisations, including museums (or their administrations).

Consent is given on a contractual basis.

Cases with Religious Connections

Perhaps the issue of obtaining letters of consent is most acute when dealing with designations that contain a religious term or symbol and whose registration is contrary to the public interest.

For example, one applicant attempted to register a mark featuring an image of an Orthodox church and the words “EASTER WINE”, for goods in Class 33. The registration was rejected because the applicant failed to submit documents confirming its affiliation with, or use with the consent of, the Russian Orthodox Church (SIP-1350/2024).

During the examination of applications for trademarks and , which contain an Islamic religious term, consent was received from the centralised religious organisation Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Russian Federation to register the designation IHSAN, provided that this element is recognised as non-protectable. However, the Intellectual Property Court did not consider such consent sufficient for the trademark to be registered due to the deficiencies set out below.

In particular, the Court noted the following:

• The letter from Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Russian Federation, submitted by the applicant as part of the case file, did not specify the specific designation or the nature of the services for which consent was granted for state registration as a trademark;
• There are various independent Islamic organisations in Russia. These include the Council of Muftis of Russia, the Coordination Center of Muslims of the North Caucasus, and the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia;
• Consequently, the fact that the applicant had received a letter of consent from the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Russian Federation could not refute Rospatent’s conclusion that the registration of the claimed designation as a trademark was contrary to the public interest (SIP-1363/2023).

It should be noted that, in accordance with the newly introduced requirements, the registration of designations containing religious symbols essentially requires a favourable opinion from the Interreligious Council of Russia.

Moreover, registration practice has evolved significantly, with a formalised mechanism for obtaining an opinion from the Interreligious Council of Russia introduced. Following the 2024 reform, the focus has shifted from obtaining individual letters of consent to the issuance of official opinions by the Interreligious Council of Russia, which Rospatent requests in accordance with established procedures.

Thus, when selecting a mark for registration as a trademark that is confusingly similar to another party’s trademark, or that features a world cultural or natural heritage site or a cultural heritage site of the peoples of the Russian Federation, or that includes, reproduces, or imitates official symbols, names, or distinguishing marks or recognisable elements thereof, and/or incorporates religious symbols, the applicant must be prepared for the fact that consent to registration will need to be obtained from the relevant persons/entities.