On October 21, 2026, the Intellectual Property Court approved the settlement agreement in case SIP-251/2025 and, by the same ruling, resolved the issue of recovering the legal costs of the client, A. Zalesov and Partners, from a third party. This ruling states that had this party properly performed its procedural duties, a significant portion of the legal costs would not have been incurred, and there would have been no need for this party to file a petition for review of the Intellectual Property Court's decision based on new circumstances. This is a rare instance of Article 111 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation being applied, where legal costs are not recovered from the losing party.
This case regarding the termination of trademark protection due to non-use is complicated by unexpected procedural twists. «A.Zalesov & Partners» (ZTG Group) team, on behalf of pesticide and agrochemical manufacturer Zemlyakoff Group, filed a lawsuit to terminate the legal protection of the «Amadeus» trademark due to partial non-use, as the trademark was registered for a wide range of products, while the client was only interested in those that could be considered similar to pesticides and agrochemicals. Notably, prior to filing the lawsuit, the copyright holder expressed willingness to provide a letter of consent to register the client's trademark, but subsequently ceased contact. The defendant did not participate in the case and did not submit any procedural documents. The Intellectual Property Court reviewed the claim and granted it in full, partially terminating the legal protection of the «Amadeus» trademark.
After the plaintiff filed a motion to recover legal costs from the losing defendant, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider the decision based on new circumstances, arguing that it was no longer the copyright holder of the «Amadeus» trademark, as during the consideration of case SIP-251/2025, the agreement under which the defendant acquired exclusive rights to the «Amadeus» trademark was declared invalid (null and void), making the company no longer the proper defendant. The decision was overturned, and the defendant was replaced by the actual copyright holder, with whom a settlement agreement was immediately concluded. The question remained, however, as to whether the original defendant, who was aware of the pending dispute regarding the validity of its status, should suffer negative consequences for failing to inform the Court of these circumstances.
The initial defendant's behavior in this case was a clear example of when Article 111 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation should be applied and legal costs should be imposed on the initial defendant, who already had third-party status at the time the dispute was resolved. It was precisely this defendant's failure to fulfill its procedural obligations that prevented the plaintiff from asking the court to suspend proceedings in this case until the dispute over proper ownership was resolved and subsequently avoiding a significant portion of the legal costs. The Intellectual Property Court agreed with this position in its ruling, stating that some of the costs would have been incurred inevitably, but some of them should be recovered from the third party who abused its procedural rights.
Zemlyakoff Group was represented in the case by «A.Zalesov & Partners» (ZTG Group): Senior Associate Yulia Kolomytseva and Senior Partner Irina Ozolina.