RUSSIA: Infringer Gently Scraped by Gillette

GILLETTE is the most renowned brand of shaving products in Russia. The word mark GILLETTE was registered as Russian trademark No. 2547 in 1944, and GILLETTE products have long been sold in Russia on a large scale since then. That popularity produced substantial enforcement activity: the Russian court database shows more than 200 cases involving GILLETTE marks, including offline infringement, online use, and non-use disputes. Gillette usually prevailed, but compensation was modest, from a few hundred dollars to about US $10,000.

This began to change in 2023 when Gillette discovered a case of infringement and sent a cease and desist letter. After receiving no response, it filed a lawsuit against an entrepreneur in Khabarovsk, case No. А73-8761/2023. Gillette alleged use of confusingly similar designations in offers for sale, advertising, and online promotion, as well as infringement of trademark No. 2547. It sought cessation of use and more than US $130,000 in compensation, calculated as double the value of counterfeit goods sold.

The respondent denied liability, arguing that Gillette had not proved the counterfeit nature of the goods used for the calculation. On June 14, 2024, the first instance court held that the evidence did not reliably prove sales of more than 6,000 counterfeit items and awarded only about US $100. The appeals court upheld that judgment on October 21, 2024, despite Gillette’s argument that public sales data had been ignored and that the respondent continued the alleged infringement.

Gillette appealed to the Intellectual Property (IP) Court as the cassation instance. On March 5, 2025, the IP Court set aside the judgments and remanded the case. It held that the evidence had not been properly assessed: a claimant may lack precise information on infringing sales, while the infringer has no interest in revealing its scale. The court also noted that the respondent had not challenged Gillette’s figures. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the respondent’s complaint on April 25, 2025.

On reconsideration, the first instance court accepted Gillette’s calculation and, on August 25, 2025, awarded more than US $130,000. The appeals court upheld that judgment on December 12, 2025. The respondent again appealed to the IP Court, but on April 13, 2026, the parties asked it to approve an amicable agreement. The IP Court approved the settlement and canceled the appellate judgment. The respondent agreed to pay about US $13,000, undertook not to repeat the infringement, and Gillette preserved its right to sue again if another infringement occurs.

The case is of broad significance to brand owners enforcing rights in Russia: the IP Court’s ruling that a plaintiff need not possess precise data on the scale of infringing sales, and that unchallenged compensation figures may be relied upon, provides a framework for securing awards that better reflect the true extent of the infringement. This moves Russian trademark enforcement meaningfully beyond the token sums that have long characterized the field.