This is not the first time that we have to recount the story of stolen trademarks, but since history invariably repeats itself here is another example of an ill-advised cooperation. 

There is a South Korean company, KyungDong Navien Co. Ltd., that produces heating equipment. It registered a trademark in Korea with the word element “GOM Ace” in 2005. Three years later, the company moved to the Russian market. It negotiated a distribution agreement with a Mr. Filatov who posed as the director of “A Heating Laboratory” company. A contract was signed and the Korean company started supplying water heating boilers “Navien Ace” to Russia.

It should be pointed out that the word “Ace” was written in an original font as shown above.  

Several years later, Filatov set up a company Gaztechnotorg Ltd. (Russia) and in 2013 registered trademark No. 491279 for heating equipment. The trademark was identical to the designation placed on the Korean equipment. Later, in 2021, Filatov assigned the trademark to himself as an individual entrepreneur and liquidated his company. 

In the meantime, the Korean company, being unaware of Filatov’s activities, set up a subsidiary in Russia named “Navien Rus” in 2013 and registered two Russian trademarks, “NAVIEN ACE” (No. 600685) and (No. 826147).  

Filatov monitored the process of registration at the Russian patent office; he filed appeals against Korean trademarks No. 600685 and No. 826147 and succeeded in cancelling them. 

After invalidation of the trademarks Filatov wrote a letter to Navien Rus in which he stated that, in his opinion, his trademark should belong to Navien Rus and that he was forgiving enough not to raise claims during 11 years against infringement of his trademark rights. He acknowledged that ACE boilers are very popular in Russia and that he did not plan to use the trademark in the future.  

He played good cop/bad cop in one person. After his soothing words, he proposed Navien Rus a deal: to buy his trademark for €150,000 (US$170,00), otherwise he would sue Navien Rus for those 11 years of unlawful use of the trademark. He would also sue all the dealers using the trademark. He circulated warning letters to various organizations and entered the trademark into the Customs Register in June 2022. 

After being ditched by Navien Rus, he sued Navien Rus and claimed compensation in the amount of 830,871,043 rubles and 20 kopeeks (!) (US$10 million) in Case No. A40-82512/2022. Filatov prevailed in court, though his claims were downshifted by the court to slightly more than R4 million (US$48,000). 

Filatov appealed the judgment at the appeal court because he thought that he was awarded too little compensation. The appeal court upheld the judgment. Filatov appealed the judgment at the cassation instance, i.e. at the IP court. His appeal concerned only the amount of money, so the court did not examine other circumstances. The court revealed mistakes in the judgments of lower courts concerning the method of calculation of compensation and remanded the case to the first instance court for reconsideration. The new hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2025. 

Seeing this unfriendly behavior of its former partner, the Korean company sued Filatov (case No. СИП-196/2024) and asked the IP court to , recognize Filatov’s actions (registration and use of the trademark) as acts of unfair competition. 

Filatov asked the court to transfer examination of the case No. СИП-196/2024 to the court where he had claimed money from the Korean company, but the IP court rejected his request because the current case concerned invalidation of a trademark as a result of unfair competition, which is the prerogative of the IP court. 

Examination of the substance of the case took place in April 2025. The IP court quoted the Law on Unfair Competition, according to which an unfair competition ruling is not allowed in connection with registration and use of a trademark. Qualification of an action as unfair competition depends on the purpose pursued by the person when he acquires the right to a trademark. This can be found on the basis of the former behaviour of the trademark owner and on his behaviour subsequent to the registration of the trademark.  

The Korean company insisted, and the court agreed, that unfair competition evidently follows from Filatov’s behavior. The long time of distribution of the goods only enhanced the value of the designation. Filatov conducted negotiations and concluded a contract with the Korean company on behalf of Heating Laboratory while he stabbed the Korean company in the back by registering the trademark in the name of his company, Gaztechnotorg. He concealed the fact of registration of the trademark in the name of, so to say, another company in order to make it difficult to invalidate the trademark. When he failed to sell the trademark to Navien Rus, he directed his efforts to impeding the normal business activity of Navien Rus.  

Concurrently with the examination of the current case, Filatov wanted to exact an exorbitant amount of compensation for the use of “his” trademark. In fact, the Korean company went to the Russian market and looked for a partner in the hope that Filatov would help it conquer the market. Instead, the Korean company stumbled over unfair behaviour and other unfriendly acts, including a claim for millions of rubles exceeding the real value of the trademark. 

The court exposed other examples of Filatov’s unfair behavior and carefully detailed them in its judgment. 

The judgment was issued on April 2, 2025. The claims of the Korean company were satisfied in full. The IP court recognized Filatov’s actions contradicting Article 10 bis of Paris Convention and Article 14.4 of the law on Protection of Competition. This enables the Korean company to go to the patent office and cancel registration of Filatov’s trademark.  

As can be seen, the lack of attention to its intellectual property cost much to the Korean company. A timely registration of the trademark in Russia would have saved lots of money, efforts and nerves. 

The forthcoming hearing of Filatov’s case in June where he claimed compensation will hardly bear fruit after the outcome of the current case.