DoggyMan Co. safeguards brand in Russian pet market

In Russia,, an individual entrepreneur obtained trademark registration No. 926023 for DOGGYMAN (see below), Classes 03, 05, 21, and 35. A Japanese company, DoggyMan H.A. Co., Ltd. (DoggyMan Co.), based in Osaka, Japan, appealed the trademark to the Chamber of Patent Disputes, arguing that it reproduces its company name.

DoggyMan Co. was founded in 1970, and its trademark elicits associations with the Japanese manufacturer (see below). They argued that this trademark may confuse consumers because the Russian market was already familiar with the Japanese company at the time the trademark application was filed.

Long before the trademark’s priority date, a supply contract was concluded in 2014 with DoggyMan Co., providing for the sale of goods marked with its logo. The company provided documents from customs predating the priority date, pictures of labels, and other documents bearing the company’s name.

The goods are also available on the Wildberries trading platform. If one clicks “doggyman,” practically every source will include a description of the company’s products. Premium Pet Ltd. imports goods under the DoggyMan brand into Russia and further distributes them to wholesale and retail outlets.

DoggyMan Co. has a series of trademarks in Japan, and it plans to register trademarks in Russia. Thus, there is a registered trademark for CATTYMAN (see below) as an international registration, and DOGGYMAN is a pending international registration (appln. No 1715053).

Every item sold by the entrepreneur mimics the appearance of DoggyMan Co.’s original goods. In fact, there is a whole segment of counterfeit animal goods, and other goods lawfully imported by Premium Pet Ltd. Consumers believe that there is some association between the entrepreneur and DoggyMan Co.

The disputed trademark includes the word “Doggy,” suggesting that the goods are associated with animals, which confuses consumers and contravenes the law. Accordingly, other goods intended for people labelled DOGGYMAN are also confusing consumers.

DoggyMan Co. began sending warning letters to the distributors, urging them to stop using its trademark. They asked the Chamber to cancel the registration of trademark No. 926023 for all goods and services for which it had been registered.

The Chamber refused to cancel the disputed trademark. DoggyMan Co. appealed the decision to the IP Court (case СИП-772/2024), which examined the case and ordered the Chamber to review it. The Chamber examined the case again, taking into account the IP Court’s judgment.

Again, DoggyMan Co. put forward the arguments described above. This time, the entrepreneur objected, arguing that DoggyMan Co. was active only in Japan and that Premium Pet Ltd. sold its goods. They further contended that DoggyMan Co. did not conduct business in Russia under its company name and that most of the goods bearing the registered trademark are not similar to those imported into Russia, according to customs declarations.

The entrepreneur stated that the goods imported by Premium Pet Ltd. do not elicit associations with his trademark. Information about the Japanese company’s good reputation is allegedly based on declaratory statements and lacks supporting documents. There is no associative link with the company DoggyMan Co.

DoggyMan Co. then provided documents showing that it produces goods outside Russia and sells them through Premium Pet Ltd. The Internet is replete with information about goods labelled DOGGYMAN, with dates long before the disputed trademark was registered. Customs declarations were submitted to demonstrate the goods’ availability in Russia.

After hearing arguments from both parties, the Chamber delved into the relevant provisions of law and their relation to the arguments.

Considering the vast and prolonged use of the designation DOGGYMAN, which had a high degree of similarity with the disputed trademark, the Chamber concluded that consumers may believe that the goods sold by the entrepreneur have the same origin as those sold by DoggyMan Co. Hence, the disputed trademark does not comply with Article 1483(1) of the Civil Code.

Considering the above, the Chamber invalidated the trademark in respect of the goods in Class 05.