On September 11, 2025, another session of the intellectual property consultation center for exporters was held.
A Belarusian entity, LLC “X,” an importer of low-cost watches manufactured in Hong Kong, asked for a consultation. The watches are produced under a trademark consisting of a single-word designation that is similar to a two-word trademark registered in the Republic of Belarus for the goods “watches” in Class 14 of the Nice Classification in the name of a Belarusian rights holder, UE “Ch.” The owner of the trademark sent a written claim to the Belarusian importer, LLC “X,” alleging infringement of its exclusive trademark rights and strongly recommending that the watches be withdrawn from sale, while also outlining the statutory liability for trademark infringement. At the same time, in the claim, the owner of the two-word trademark asserted that it also owns a single-word trademark identical to the Hong Kong watch brand.
The Belarusian importer was interested in the procedure for resolving this dispute.
The consultant’s response was based on Belarusian enforcement practice and trademark legislation, as well as on an analysis of the registered trademark and other trademarks identified during the consultation.
In the Republic of Belarus, the degree of similarity between designations applied for trademark registration is determined during examination at the National Center of Intellectual Property. The degree of similarity between registered trademarks is determined by the Appeals Council under the patent authority and/or by the Supreme Court (Judicial Board for Intellectual Property Cases), depending on jurisdiction.
The trademark (a single-word mark) of the Hong Kong watch manufacturer, under which the watches are imported into Belarus, has been registered in the country via the international procedure in the name of a Polish company “V” since 2007 for Class 14 goods: “precious metals and their alloys and goods made thereof; jewelry, costume jewelry, precious stones; watches and other chronometric instruments.”
Thus, it can be concluded that the actual holder of the exclusive trademark rights for the goods “watches” in the Republic of Belarus is the Polish company, not UE “Ch.”
The trademark of the Polish company “V” is not included in the National Customs Register of Intellectual Property Objects of Belarus. It is also not included in the Customs Register of Intellectual Property Objects of the Russian Federation, since in 2009 the Federal Institute of Industrial Property (FIPS) refused protection of this international trademark in Russia on absolute grounds.
Therefore, the Polish rights holder currently cannot rely on customs protection of its trademark at either the Belarusian or Russian borders until the mark is included in the Belarusian Customs Register of Intellectual Property Objects. Considering the approach of the State Customs Committee toward intellectual property owned by rights holders from “unfriendly” countries, such inclusion is unlikely in practice.
At the same time, if the Polish company “V,” as the owner of the international trademark, considers its rights to be infringed, it has grounds to file a claim with the Judicial Board for Intellectual Property Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, seeking cessation of infringement of its exclusive trademark rights not only by LLC “X” or any sellers supplied by it, but also by any suppliers importing watches under the single-word trademark into Belarus, except for official distributors (if any).
According to Article 28 of the Law, disputes related to violations of trademark legislation are considered by the Appeals Council and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus within their respective компетенции.
However, it is unlikely that a claim would be filed with the Supreme Court’s Judicial Board for Intellectual Property Cases on behalf of the Polish company “V,” given the current санкционноедавление on the Republic of Belarus by certain countries.
In turn, if a claim is filed with the Judicial Board for Intellectual Property Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus by the Belarusian trademark owner, where the defendant would be a Belarusian seller or supplier, the defense may be built on the argument that there is no likelihood of confusion between the registered two-word trademark and the single-word designation in use. One of the key arguments supporting the absence of similarity could be the fact that legal protection was granted to the two-word trademark despite the existence of an earlier international single-word trademark registered in Belarus for identical goods - namely, “watches.”
