Contributor: Tegan Miller-McCormack, associate at Katten Muchin Rosenman UK LLP
Watching Peppa Pig with my nephew, I never thought the children’s cartoon would become something of a political magnet, including in the field of trademarks. Yet in the last few months, Peppa has had just as much screen time in the news as on a children’s TV channel. In November 2021 Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister, made headlines after discussing the ‘merits’ of Peppa Pig World at a conference. In his speech, he was enthused by the fact that “a pig that looks like a hair dryer… would be exported to 180 countries… [and evidence] the power of UK creativity”.
This week, reports that a Russian court have ruled that the children’s cartoon trademarks relating to Peppa Pig can be used and infringed by a Russian ‘entrepreneur’, without fair payment to, or consent from, the registered owner of the Russian trade marks.[1]
The judge overseeing the case dismissed the claim after stating the restrictive economic and political sanctions imposed on Russia allowed it to refuse the infringement claims, which it considered an abuse of right. Reports have since disclosed that the Russian government has issued a decree that allows patented inventions and industrial designs from “unfriendly countries” to be used without permission or compensation. “Unfriendly countries” include the U.K., U.S.A and affiliated foreign countries.
What does this mean for western brands?
Refusing to acknowledge existing intellectual property rights reduces any element for competition; it allows for flagrant infringement and stifles creativity.
Whilst at present many highly regarded Western owned businesses have pulled out of, or have temporarily ceased sales in Russia, it is useful to consider what would happen in the event that any business would wish to re-open in Russia at a future point. It is conceivable that in Russia, Western brands may significantly reduce in value or smaller brands could even become worthless in the jurisdiction because of brand dilution. It is likely to become near impossible to stamp out copycats and infringers in a market where western brands have effectively been deemed unprotected. This is another unexpected cost of this awful war, one that the industry and government will have to face.
Without protection of ideas and brands, innovation is stifled and economic growth is likely to suffer as a result but like many other changes we have seen, it is irrelevant compared with the risk to the lives and the loss and destruction happening in Ukraine.
[1] The ruling was noted by Kyiv-based Twitter user @Oh_89 on Friday, and then confirmed by Law360 on the court’s website. The online docket does not have a copy of the claim Entertainment One filed. The case is number А28-11930/2021 in the Arbitration Court of the Kirov Region.
