Russian Law: IP Court and Rospatent Reach Different Conclusions on the Likelihood of Confusion Between “Trekrezan” and “Trekresil”

Although the Court overturned the initial decision, Rospatent maintained that the trademark “Trekrezan” is not confusingly similar to “Trekresil.”

Nelovia is the owner of the trademark "Trekrezan" / Трекрезан, protected under Registration No. 338350.

Trekrezan (oxyethylammonium methylphenoxyacetate) is used to strengthen the immune system and prevent colds. Since the 1990s, the drug had been manufactured by the Usolye-Sibirsky Chemical and Pharmaceutical Plant. However, in 2020, Nelovia acquired the trademark rights and began manufacturing the drug under this name at the Solopharm plant in St. Petersburg. Meanwhile, after discontinuing production of the product bearing the "Trekrezan" trademark, the Usolye-Sibirsky Chemical and Pharmaceutical Plant continues to manufacture a product under the trademark «Трекрезолид» / Trekrezolide.

According to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property of Russia (Rospatent), the trademark "Trekresil" / Трекресил was registered by GlobalMedPharm in 2018 under Registration No. 684647. In 2020, the trademark was assigned to Konstanta-Ya. Both trademarks are registered for goods in Class 5 under the International Classification of Goods and Services (Nice Classification). The "Trekresil" trademark is due to expire in March 2028.

2. Proceedings Before Rospatent for Cancellation of the Trademark

In November 2023, Nelovia (the "Applicant") filed a request with Rospatent to invalidate the "Trekresil" / Трекресил trademark on the grounds that it was confusingly similar to its earlier "Trekrezan" trademark.

- Nelovia argued that the registration of the disputed "Trekresil" / Трекресил trademark violated the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, as it was confusingly similar to the earlier "Trekrezan" / Трекрезан trademark, which had been registered and protected since 2006. The Applicant also claimed that it had enhanced the distinctiveness and recognition of its trademark through advertising. Specifically, Grotex, a company owned by Nelovia, had actively promoted the drug Trekrezan. "In just three months in 2020—from March 1 to May 31, 2022—the advertisement received 11.4 million impressions." Nelovia argued that this intensive marketing strategy had made the Trekrezan trademark highly distinctive and that the disputed trademark could mislead patients about the "actual manufacturer of the product". It further alleged that the actions of the owner of the disputed trademark constituted an "abuse of rights and unfair competition".

- In response to the above allegations, Konstanta-Ya [the owner of the "Trekresil" trademark] pointed out, among other differences, that the trademarks were not confusingly similar in terms of pronunciation, as they differed in their letters and stress patterns. Konstanta-Ya also noted that "the semantic criterion of similarity is inapplicable due to the fanciful nature of the compared trademarks". It further argued that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that the prefix "Trekre-" was exclusively associated with its company. This argument was supported by the fact that the Usolye-Sibirsky Chemical and Pharmaceutical Plant continued to manufacture a product under the trademark «Трекрезолид» / Trekrezolide. "The disputed trademarks have changed ownership several times, and the medicines have been manufactured by different parties," a representative of Konstanta-Ya explained.

In addition, the company presented the results of a sociological survey conducted by the Specialized Sociological Laboratory of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The survey showed that the majority of consumers (86–88%) believed that the medicines were manufactured by different companies. Most respondents (87–88%) also stated that they would not confuse the two pharmaceutical products when purchasing them.

- In June 2024, Rospatent issued a decision maintaining the legal protection of the "Trekresil" trademark, concluding that the two trademarks had a low degree of similarity. Rospatent also referred to the findings of the survey conducted by the Specialized Sociological Laboratory, as presented by Konstanta-Ya, which indicated that the Trekresil trademark did not mislead consumers, since most respondents believed that Trekresil and Trekrezan were manufactured by different companies.

Earlier, in April 2024, Nelovia explained that it was awaiting the results of a similar survey conducted by another organization and requested a postponement of the hearing. However, Rospatent rejected this request.

3. Decision of the Intellectual Property Court

In September 2024, Nelovia filed a lawsuit with the Intellectual Property Court (IP Court), seeking to overturn Rospatent's decision. In May 2025, the IP Court ruled in favor of Nelovia.

The IP Court examined the trademarks and concluded that the disputed trademark had "a certain degree of similarity" to the Applicant's trademark. The Court also found that the sociological survey submitted by Konstanta-Ya could not conclusively establish that there was no likelihood of confusion between the compared trademarks, particularly given the low degree of similarity identified by Rospatent. Accordingly, in May 2025, the Court annulled the authority's decision and ordered Rospatent to reconsider Nelovia's request.

In September 2025, the Presidium of the Intellectual Property Court considered the appeals filed by Rospatent, Konstanta-Ya and other parties to the Supreme Court and upheld the lower court's decision. In January 2026, the Supreme Court of Russia also adopted the same position.

4. Rospatent Reconsiders the Trademark Cancellation Request

In mid-January 2026, Konstanta-Ya informed Rospatent that, although the Court had overturned the federal authority's initial decision, it had not established any likelihood of confusion between the trademarks.

Thus, although the two levels of courts had not established that the trademarks were confusingly similar, Rospatent was nevertheless required to reconsider Nelovia's opposition.

Rospatent once again rejected Nelovia's opposition. "Both consumers and pharmaceutical professionals were familiar with these medicinal products at the time the cancellation request was filed, and the products were not associated with the same manufacturer. Therefore, there was no actual confusion between them," the authority concluded.

Source:
- https://vademec.ru/news/2026/04/09/rospatent-povtorno-otkazalsya-otmenyat-deystvie-prinadlezhashchego-konstanta-ya-torgovogo-znaka-trek/