dw.com
25 International Brands Maintain Russian Trademarks Despite Market Exit
Since February 2022, over 460 international firms have left the Russian market, yet 25 major brands, including Ikea and McDonald's, retain Russian trademark registrations, despite public statements to the contrary, raising questions about future market re-entry.
- What concrete actions are companies taking regarding their trademarks in Russia, and what are the immediate implications of these actions?
- Over 460 international companies have ceased operations in Russia since the start of the war in February 2022, selling or liquidating their assets, according to a study by the Kyiv School of Economics. While 59 global brands have completely left, 25 still hold trademarks in Russia, including Ikea, McDonald's, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, and Volvo. This has led to speculation about a potential return despite companies' stated departures.",
- What are the underlying reasons companies provide for retaining trademarks in Russia, and how do these reasons relate to their public statements on leaving the market?
- Many companies leaving Russia maintain trademark registrations, a procedural move to prevent others from using their brands, explained by Russian economist Yan Melkumov. This strategy is viewed as strategic planning, enabling easier re-entry if the political climate changes, rather than a signal of immediate return. Some companies transferred trademark rights to former subsidiaries, creating further complexity.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of current trademark registrations for future business activity in Russia, considering the unstable political and economic situation?
- The situation highlights the complex interplay of economic and political factors influencing corporate decisions regarding Russia. While some companies' trademark registrations might indicate a long-term option for re-entry, the unstable political climate, coupled with statements from companies like McDonald's and Coca-Cola, suggests any return would be cautious and gradual, differing significantly from the enthusiasm of the 1990s.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's headline and introduction might create a misleading impression by emphasizing the continued trademark registrations, potentially exaggerating the likelihood of Western companies returning to the Russian market. The use of quotes from Russian media further reinforces this framing, without sufficient counterbalance. The inclusion of the perspective from the Russian economist adds a layer of nuance, but the overall framing leans towards a narrative suggesting more Western involvement than may actually exist.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but the selection of quotes from Russian media could subtly introduce bias. Words like "nawały" (invasion) could have stronger alternatives. The overall tone presents the situation factually but the choice of which quotes to include hints towards a certain perspective.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on companies maintaining trademark registrations in Russia, but omits discussion of the broader economic and geopolitical consequences of these actions. It doesn't analyze the potential impact on Russian consumers or the implications for Russian businesses competing with these brands. Furthermore, while it mentions a campaign by B4Ukraine, it lacks details on the scope and effectiveness of this campaign. While space constraints are a factor, a brief mention of broader economic implications would improve the article.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by focusing solely on whether companies are maintaining trademarks in Russia, implying this is the sole indicator of their engagement or disengagement from the market. It simplifies a complex issue by overlooking other forms of business activity or engagement with the Russian market.
Sustainable Development Goals
The withdrawal of international companies from Russia, while initially aimed at protesting the war in Ukraine, could worsen economic inequality within Russia. The departure of major brands leads to job losses and reduced economic opportunities, particularly affecting those employed by these companies or in related industries. The potential return of some companies, contingent on political stability and favorable conditions, does not negate this immediate negative impact on Russian economic inequality. Moreover, the article mentions that the Russian government is setting conditions for companies to return, which may exacerbate existing inequalities by favoring specific Russian partners in joint ventures.