The Baltika brewing company is trying in court to retain the rights to the Danish brand Carlsberg

The confrontation between the Baltika brewing company and the Danish Carlsberg Group over the rights to use brands is gaining momentum. Now the Russian company is trying in court to invalidate Carlsberg’s unilateral refusal of the license for the group’s flagship brand, the production of beer under which ceased in the Russian Federation in the spring of 2022. Baltika will not have any technical problems to resume bottling beer under the Carlsberg brand, and the brand can increase sales and production, experts say.

The Baltika brewing company filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region to invalidate the unilateral refusal of the Danish Carlsberg Breweries A/S from the licensing agreement regarding the Carlsberg and Grimbergen brands. Definition published in the file of arbitration cases. According to Baltika’s application, the court prohibited Rospatent from terminating the rights to use these trademarks under the relevant license agreements. As follows from Rospatent data, Baltika’s license for the Carlsberg brand is valid until the end of 2027, and for Grimbergen until the end of 2030. Baltika declined to comment; Carlsberg Group did not promptly respond to Kommersant.

Baltika is part of the Carlsberg Group, but since July 2023, by decree of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the shares of the Danish group are under the temporary management of the Federal Property Management Agency (Rosimushchestvo).see “Kommersant” dated July 17). Its founder, Taimuraz Bolloev, was appointed president of Baltika. Carlsberg subsequently announced the termination of licenses for international and regional brands with Baltika. The Russian company responded by filing a lawsuit to invalidate Carlsberg’s refusal to supply and license the Seth & Riley`s Garage, Holsten, Kronenbourg and Tuborg brands. The case was considered at a closed meeting; in the file of cases there is a message about partial or complete satisfaction of the claim. Carlsberg is appealing the court’s decision.

The Danish company announced the cessation of production of beer under the Carlsberg brand in Russia in the spring of 2022, after the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine. As Kommersant’s market source notes, Baltika’s new lawsuit may be a response to the possible transfer of the company’s brands to Carlsberg structures in other countries.

In October, Baltika filed claims against Vista BiUi Co. in Belarus and Carlsberg Kazakhstan to invalidate the license agreement and cancel the deal. And in December, a message about Baltika’s claim against Carlsberg Azerbaijan appeared in the case file without details. The Vedomosti newspaper wrote that Baltika also asked the Russian Presidential Administration to instruct Rospatent to invite the departments of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to suspend the registration of licenses for the use of the company’s main brands in these countries.

Igor Khavsky, co-owner of the distributor SWAM Group and the Gletcher brewery, says that if the court decides in favor of Baltika, the company should not have any technical problems to resume production under the Carlsberg brand, if Baltika deems it necessary, since all the necessary materials are available in Russia . The Carlsberg brand provided Baltika with significant sales and could help increase production, adds Kommersant’s market source.

Another Kommersant interlocutor adds that retaining the rights to international brands may be a temporary solution, needed until Baltika develops and promotes its own new premium brands. General Director of the Parallel Import Association Anatoly Semenov doubts that in the current situation the court will rule against Baltika.

At the same time, according to Mr. Semenov, compulsory licensing of trademarks is prohibited by the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which includes Russia, and Carlsberg may try to challenge Baltika’s actions not only in the Russian arbitration court, but also at the WTO. But, the expert adds, the issue of qualifying the preservation of a valid license for a brand as compulsory licensing may be debatable.

Anatoly Kostyrev