The beginning of this case was routine. RNU Co., Ltd., a Korean company, sued Reclar Ltd., a Russian company, and asked the court to recognize actions of the respondent related to acquisition of rights and use of a trademark as acts of unfair competition (case No СИП-773/2024). The Russian company filed a trademark application on July 25, 2022, in Class 3, and part of the goods in Class 35, and obtained registration of the trademark RECLAR on November 1, 2023 (No. 977682).

It should be noted that the word “reclar” is not part of the Russian language and looks like it is a coined word in Russian. It transpired at the hearing of the IP Court that the Korean company had the trademark RECLAR of its own. It was earlier registered in several countries of the former Soviet Union, in the European Union, in the Republic of Korea and also in Russia in Class 10 under No. 867645 in 2022.

The Korean company also decided to register the trademark in Class 35 but was refused because at that time that designation was in the process of registration by the respondent. 

Looking back into the past the Korean company explained that it tested the Russian market from 2018. It concluded a supply contract with HB Group, a Russian company, in 2019. The contract provided that HB Group had the right to use the trademark RECLAR for promoting and distribution of the supplied goods without the right to use the trademark for other purposes. 

The business developed successfully, so RNU Co. acquired a domain name and set up an internet site at https://reclarrussia.ru.

In its turn, the Russian Reclar Ltd. was set up in 2022 and it registered the domain name ‘reclar-russia’ and the site https://reclar-russia.com.

In 2023, the Korean and Russian companies concluded a one-off supply contract after which the Russian company began to pose as the exclusive official representative of the brand.

As a result of that outrageous behaviour, the Korean company severed relations with Russian Reclar.

The Russian company made attempts to rectify the situation but failed. Further, it blocked social media sites of the Korean company and sued it, trying to forbid the use of the designation RECLAR on the basis of its Russian trademark for RECLAR, No. 977682. 

The Korean company (the plaintiff) argued that registration of the trademark by the Russian company (the respondent) creates a threat of damages for the plaintiff, though the plaintiff had used the disputed designation long before the registration of the disputed trademark. The respondent was undertaking consecutive and unfair actions aimed at registration of the trademark and forcing out the plaintiff from the market. The respondent was fully aware of the use of the designation by the plaintiff. It is clear that choosing such a rare word for registration of a trademark, the respondent could not be unaware of the use of that word by another person, so its actions regarding trademark registration are a clear case of unfair competition.

The respondent objected, putting forward faltering arguments. It said that there was no evidence of unfair behaviour aimed at causing damage to the Korean company. The Korean company does not have trademark registrations in Class 3 and services in Class 35 for which respondent’s trademark is registered, nor did it use that designation so that the consumers could be aware of it, specifically with regard to cosmetic products sold by the respondent. According to the respondent, the plaintiff wanted to correct its managerial mistakes at the expense of the respondent. It did not register its trademark in respect of the goods it wanted to sell in Russia.

It was not difficult for the court to unravel the situation. According to Article 10bis of Paris Convention, any act of competition contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters constitutes an act of unfair competition. The court also cited Russia’s Law on Protection of Competition which contains similar provisions. It examined behaviour of the parties in minute details. In particular, it pointed out that one of the circumstances that may show unfair behaviour of a person is that the person knew or should have known at the time of filing a trademark application that third persons were lawfully using that designation for labelling their goods. That designation was familiar to consumers and the applicant of the trademark wanted to use that popularity to his advantage.

The court added many more arguments showing that the behaviour of the respondent was an act of unfair competition. It recognized that the fact of filing the trademark application by Russian company was abuse or right all the more that there existed correspondence between the plaintiff and the respondent which additionally showed premeditated character of his actions.

The conclusion of the court was that the purpose of registration of the trademark No. 977662 by the respondent was to obtain a monopoly for that designation. The respondent wanted to take advantage of the reputation of the designation created by the plaintiff and further hamper the use of the disputed designation by the plaintiff.

The court handed down a judgment in favour of the Korean company in June 2, 2025. The cost of recognition of unfair competition for the respondent was only 6,000 rubles (US$76), but it was also removed from the market, which is much more painful.

The judgment could be appealed during two months which (surprisingly) was done by the respondent. The fact is that the picture was crystal clear and the respondent had no chances to overturn the judgment. Nevertheless, he tried to do just that and failed. The hearing took place on August 4, 2025.