When Starbucks left Russia in 2022, its local cafés quickly reemerged as Stars Coffee – triggering a legal battle over brand rights. This article unpacks the Russian IP Court’s resolution of the dispute and offers practical lessons for companies navigating trademark challenges in uncertain markets.
Background: From Starbucks to Stars Coffee
In 2022, Starbucks announced it would fully withdraw from Russia due to the geopolitical situation, including Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Soon after, Russian entrepreneur and local celebrity Mr. Anton Pinsky acquired the company’s local operations and relaunched them as Stars Coffee.
To secure the new brand, Pinsky filed trademark applications for the Stars Coffee mark. Rospatent rejected these applications, considering them confusingly similar to Starbucks’ trademarks, which remained valid even though Starbucks had left the market.
Pinsky then filed non-use cancellation actions with the IP Court, claiming that Starbucks had not used its marks in Russia for over three years. Starbucks responded by re-filing its trademark portfolio, likely to try to restart the non-use period. Some of these new filings were also refused because Stars Coffee’s applications were still pending.
This created a stalemate: both sides’ filings blocked each other. The dispute then moved to the Russian IP Court in case SIP-420/2024, which first had to decide whether Pinsky even had the legal interest needed to claim cancellation.
The IP Court’s decision: No legal interest, no cancellation
The IP Court dismissed Pinsky’s claims. Under Russian law, a non-use cancellation action can only proceed if the claimant proves they have an interest in cancelling the mark. Without this, the IP Court will not consider the use aspect at all.
The IP Court concluded that Stars Coffee’s marks were not confusingly similar to Starbucks’ trademarks. As a result, Starbucks’ marks did not create a real legal obstacle for Stars Coffee’s business, and Pinsky lacked the legal interest required to pursue cancellation.
The IP Court also noted that Russian consumers are generally aware that Starbucks has exited the market and that its former operations now operate under the Stars Coffee brand. With the similarity issue clarified, the conflict effectively disappeared: the marks do not block each other, allowing Starbucks to retain its trademarks while Stars Coffee continues operating under its own brand.
Why was the similarity analysis significant?
This approach is new. Traditionally, proving interest in a cancellation action has been simple. A claimant could usually show interest by presenting evidence of:
- a refused trademark application, and/or
- ongoing business activities.
However, in this case, the IP Court went further. It examined similarity as part of the decision-making process regarding the interest itself. Since the marks were not considered similar, the IP Court ruled that Pinsky had no interest in cancelling Starbucks’ trademarks. This represents a shift in practice.
Possible reasons for this change could include:
- A stricter view of legal interest – Claimants must now show a real legal conflict caused by the earlier mark, not just a procedural refusal.
- Preventing misuse of cancellation actions – The IP Court signaled that cancellation cannot be used simply to “clean the register” without a genuine conflict.
- A message to local businesses – The ruling may serve as a warning to local companies to stop filing bad-faith non-use cancellation actions designed only to remove foreign marks.
- A practical solution to the stalemate – By finding no similarity at the interest stage, the Court ended the mutual blocking situation between the parties.
Geopolitical context: Where law meets politics
Although the decision is based on legal reasoning, it may also reflect broader geopolitical considerations. In doing so, the Court avoided giving the impression of seizing foreign intellectual property or acting against foreign rights. At the same time, the ruling allowed for localization, enabling Stars Coffee to continue operating without legal conflict and supporting domestic economic continuity.
This can be interpreted as a pragmatic effort to maintain business activity in a turbulent environment, signaling that Russia remains open to entrepreneurial ventures even if foreign companies withdraw.
The decision may also be viewed as recognizing the practical challenges foreign IP owners face under the sanctions, including difficulties in actively using their marks in Russia. In this sense, the judgment can be seen as striking a delicate balance: on one hand, it gestures toward international IP norms, and on the other, it shows flexibility in adapting those norms to local and geopolitical realities.
Strategic outcome: Coexistence without an agreement
The ruling creates an unusual form of coexistence:
- Starbucks retains its trademarks even though it no longer operates in Russia.
- Stars Coffee can continue to operate without risk of cancellation or infringement claims.
- Rospatent’s refusals are effectively neutralized because the IP Court found no similarity between the marks.
Both brands will co-exist on the register — without any formal coexistence agreement.
Conclusion: A practical balance with lessons for foreign IP holders
The Starbucks v. Stars Coffee ruling is less about victory than about balance. Starbucks keeps its trademarks; Stars Coffee keeps its market. The IP Court preserved formal IP integrity while ensuring local commercial stability.
For foreign IP holders, the case underlines several strategic points:
- Non-use cancellation actions require proof of a real, present conflict before use will even be examined. Opportunistic filings are unlikely to succeed.
- The IP Court’s decision to analyze similarity at the “interest” stage offers added protection to foreign rights holders, even where use is absent.
- Exiting the Russian market does not automatically mean loss of trademark rights. The IP Court remains reluctant to cancel well-known foreign marks without a strong justification.
- Long absences carry commercial risks, as local successors may gain market recognition.
- A proactive strategy is key – ongoing filings, market monitoring, and potential coexistence arrangements can help foreign companies maintain leverage amid geopolitical headwinds.
Overall, the ruling reflects a practical coexistence model — safeguarding foreign IP rights while allowing local continuity. Whether it signals a new approach or is a one-time case remains to be seen.