A trademark can be challenged even if its owner has died: new legal position of the Supreme Court
In practice, the question arose as to whether an action for early termination of trademark protection due to non-use can be filed if the right holder has died but the heir has not yet registered the transfer of rights. The Supreme Court of Russia, in its Ruling No. 300‑ES25‑6531 of 1 November 2025, formulated an approach that resolves this conflict and ensures uniformity of judicial practice.
An action for early termination of the legal protection of a trademark as a result of its non-use must be brought against the person who is recorded as the right holder in the State Register of Trademarks and Service Marks of Russia at the time the action is filed. This clarification is contained in § 168 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia No. 10 of 23 April 2019. It is precisely this right holder who bears the obligation to use the mark, and it is precisely against him or her that the claim may be asserted.
However, in a situation where the right holder has died, the information concerning him or her continues to appear in the register until the heir registers the transfer of the exclusive right. The heir acquires the right to the trademark by way of universal succession from the date of the opening of the succession (Article 1152 of the Civil Code of Russia). In this context, the state registration of the transfer of rights by way of succession has a rights‑confirming, rather than a rights‑creating, character (Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Russia No. 28‑P of 3 July 2018). For third parties who rely on the register data, however, the information entered in the register is exclusively legally decisive.
The Supreme Court pointed out: if the action is filed after the death of the right holder but the deceased continues to be listed in the register, the claimant objectively cannot name the heir as the defendant because the registration of the transfer of rights has not yet taken place. In such a situation, the action must be brought against the person named in the register. In the course of the proceedings, when the heir registers the transfer of rights, the court effects a change of defendant by way of procedural legal succession on the basis of Article 48 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of Russia.
The Court also drew attention to the specific features of pre‑trial dispute resolution. According to § 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia No. 18 of 22 June 2021, if the pre‑trial procedure has been complied with in respect of the legal predecessor, renewed compliance with that procedure in respect of the legal successor in the same dispute is not required. Consequently, sending the proposal concerning non‑use of the trademark to the deceased right holder at the address stated in the register is deemed to constitute proper performance of the mandatory pre‑trial step.
The approach formulated by the Supreme Court thus excludes the possibility of denying judicial protection to an interested person solely on the ground that the right holder died before the action was filed and the heir had not yet registered his or her rights. As long as the register has not been updated, the claimant is entitled to rely on the publicly available information. Once the heir registers the transfer of the exclusive right, the court substitutes the defendant, thereby allowing the dispute to be heard on the merits.
This approach ensures a balance of interests among all parties involved: the interested person does not lose the opportunity to challenge a non‑used trademark because of the lengthy administration of the estate, and the heir, upon becoming the right holder, gains the opportunity to defend his or her rights in the same proceedings. Furthermore, the court's decision confirms the principle of public reliability of the state register, on which participants in civil transactions may rely.
