Are Western Brands Returning to Russia?

Are Western Brands Returning to Russia?

How Russian State Media Turn Trademark Registration into a Propaganda Tool

The Illusion of “Return”

Since autumn 2025, Russian state-controlled media, most notably TASS, have been systematically publishing reports on the registration or renewal of trademarks by foreign companies with Rospatent. These reports are framed as evidence that Western businesses are allegedly preparing to return to the Russian market or are “reconsidering” their decision to leave Russia after 2022.

In reality, this does not reflect renewed economic engagement. What is taking place is an information campaign aimed primarily at a domestic Russian audience. The intended recipients are Russian consumers and the domestic business community, not international investors or Western markets.

The objectives of this messaging are pragmatic. It seeks to create the perception that sanctions have failed to produce the expected impact, to foster expectations of rapid “normalisation”, to reduce internal social and economic anxiety, and to legitimise parallel imports and branded substitutes. References to Bloomberg serve a supporting role, lending external credibility to the message without altering its fundamentally domestic and propagandistic orientation.

The Disney Case: How the Narrative Is Constructed

On 22 November 2025, TASS reported that Disney Enterprises had renewed 31 trademarks in Russia for a ten-year period. These included the Disney name, the iconic castle logo, and the titles and characters of well-known animated films. The article emphasised that Disney exited the Russian market in 2022 while simultaneously maintaining exclusive trademark rights.

Crucial context was omitted. Trademark renewal does not constitute a resumption of commercial activity. Disney has formally ceased production, distribution, and licensing of its content in Russia. There are no public or non-public indications of plans to return or restore operations.

What is presented as a potential shift in business strategy is, in fact, a purely legal measure to protect intellectual property.

The Same Pattern Across Dozens of Other Brands

The same framing has been applied to many other international companies. Media reports highlight trademark activity by payment systems such as Visa and Mastercard; automotive manufacturers including Audi, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Ford, Volvo, Hyundai, and Kia; luxury and fashion brands such as Chanel, Christian Dior, Fendi, Puma, and Burberry; technology and media corporations including Google, Samsung, Sony, Reuters, and Disney Enterprises; as well as companies in retail, HoReCa, and FMCG sectors such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Starbucks, and eBay. Leading gaming industry actors, including Activision Blizzard, are also mentioned.

In all of these cases, the underlying conditions are identical. Companies ceased operations in Russia in 2022. The sanctions regime has not changed. There has been no return of investment, production, or official sales. The activity in question is limited to technical legal actions related to intellectual property protection.

Why Brands Are Filing Now

The timing of these filings is driven by Russian civil law. Under current legislation, a trademark may be revoked if it is not used for three consecutive years. For rights holders, this creates concrete risks, including loss of brand ownership, re-registration by domestic entities, and the legalisation of counterfeit or brand-imitating products.

In response, companies take the minimum legal steps required to preserve trademark rights, without establishing any market presence or operational activity.

Why This Makes Sense for the Companies Themselves

For Western companies, trademark registration or renewal serves to protect an asset rather than a business. It functions as legal insurance against future disputes and reputational risks, without creating obligations or signalling a return. The procedure is formal, relatively low-cost, and does not conflict with existing sanctions, unlike reopening stores, resuming supply chains, or restarting marketing activity.

Constructing a Domestic Narrative

While the legal actions themselves are routine, their media presentation follows a clear pattern. Russian state media do not explain the legal necessity behind trademark renewals. They do not highlight the unchanged sanctions regime. They avoid citing any corporate statements indicating plans to return. Instead, legal procedures are framed as economic or political signals suggesting an imminent comeback of Western business.

This effect is reinforced through serial reporting. Individually neutral stories, repeated across multiple brands, create the impression of a broader trend. References to Western sources are used not for analytical balance, but as tools to legitimise a pre-defined domestic message.

The resulting narrative is addressed squarely to the internal audience. International isolation is portrayed as temporary, sanctions as ineffective, and Western business as ultimately compelled to return. This narrative is not grounded in observable corporate behaviour. It is constructed through a manipulative reinterpretation of legal realities.

Conclusion

Trademark registration and renewal by foreign companies in Russia represent a technical mechanism for protecting intellectual property. Russian state media systematically use these legal actions to construct a domestic propaganda narrative that implies the inevitability of a Western economic return. The significance lies not in the legal acts themselves, but in how they are framed to sustain the illusion of “the West coming back”.