An individual entrepreneur filed an application to register the designation "ALEXANDER VOLKOV" as a trademark. Based on the results of examination of the filed application, Rospatent refused registration of the trademark. The decision was based on the conclusion that the claimed designation "ALEXANDER VOLKOV" reproduces the name and surname of the famous Russian mixed-style fighter Alexander Volkov. The examination concluded that the use of the claimed designation by the applicant is capable of causing misconceptions among consumers about the manufacturer of goods (service provider).

The applicant tried to appeal the Rospatent's decision, arguing that the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on false or misleading designations are not applicable to the names of famous personalities, since there is a special norm – paragraph 9 of Article 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, for compliance with which the designation is not examined by Rospatent. The applicant also explained that he is a well-known hairdresser and the claimed designation reproduces his first and last name.

The Chamber for Patent Disputes refused to satisfy the applicant's objection, applying an additional ground for refusal of registration – paragraph 1 of Article 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

In making the decision, the Chamber for Patent Disputes proceeded from the fact that in the claimed designation "ALEXANDER VOLKOV" the word "Alexander" is a popular male name, and "Volkov" is a widespread Russian surname. Since the claimed designation has no other meaning than the name and surname, the Chamber found that it does not have a distinctive ability, since it is not able to independently individualize the goods and services of one particular person among the numerous equal bearers of this surname and name.

Disagreeing with the decision of the Chamber, the applicant appealed to the IP Court. The court, however, also left the entrepreneur's application without satisfaction.

The IP Court pointed out that the widespread distribution in Russia of the surname, which is part of the claimed designation, in itself cannot serve as a basis for refusing its registration as a trademark. At the same time, this circumstance may indicate that the address group of consumers will perceive the claimed designation solely as a surname, and not as an indication of the source of origin of the goods or services. That is, if the surname is widespread on the territory of Russia, the lack of distinguishing ability is presumed.