Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Russian Vodka Saga

By Jared Looper
September 01, 2020

What do the fall of the Soviet Union, a heist of trademark rights, and Stolichnaya vodka have in common? They are all key components of the Russian Federation's efforts to reclaim its trademarks in Stolichnaya vodka. After a convoluted history both of the transfer of these marks and the litigation to recover these marks, Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport (FTE), the entity seeking to recover the Stolichnaya marks for the Russian Federation, has finally survived a motion to dismiss its case of trademark infringement after sixteen years of litigation. Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits International B.V., 2020 WL 4349840 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020). So why did it take so long for FTE to get to this stage?

The Stolichnaya marks have passed through many hands in a series of confusing corporate transactions. They have taken the following path to their current disputed ownership:

  1. In 1969, a Soviet state entity named V/O-SPI obtained a United States trademark for Stolichnaya vodka.
  2. V/O-SPI is renamed to VVO-SPI.
  3. VVO-SPI assigned the United States mark to PepsiCo in 1991; this assignment would revert to VVO-SPI in 2001.
  4. VVO-SPI was privatized and renamed to VAO-SPI.
  5. VAO-SPI represented to PepsiCo that it was the successor of VVO-SPI so that it would revert the marks to VAO-SPI.
  6. VAO-SPI's successor-in-interest sold the reversionary rights to ZAO-SPI.
  7. ZAO-SPI sold the rights to Spirits International.
  8. Spirits International entered into several distribution agreements; relevant here, it entered into an agreement with WGS to sell and distribute Stolichnaya vodka in the United States in 2008.

On its face, these transactions, while convoluted, do not seem to imply that the Russian Federation is still the proper owner of the Stolichnaya marks. But the list of these transactions omits one key fact — the privatization of VVO-SPI to VAO-SPI was fraudulent, as the Second Circuit found in 2010.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.