dw.com
460+ International Companies Exit Russia, Leaving Trademark Complexities
Over 460 international companies ceased operations in Russia since February 2022, with 59 global brands leaving the market; 25 maintain trademarks while others face potential legal challenges, creating opportunities for non-Western competitors.
- What is the immediate impact of over 460 international companies ceasing operations in Russia, and how does it affect the global economic landscape?
- More than 460 international companies have ceased operations in Russia since February 2022, selling or liquidating assets, according to a Kiev School of Economics study. 59 global brands left the Russian market; 25 maintain trademarks, preventing others from using their names or logos. The remaining 34, including Henkel and Fortum, haven't used their trademarks since February 2022.
- What are the long-term consequences of this mass exodus of Western businesses from Russia, and how will it reshape global trade and geopolitical dynamics?
- The situation benefits non-Western companies like those from China, India, and the Middle East, who are actively replacing Western brands. For example, 27 clothing and footwear brands from these countries have already replaced 32 Western companies. Even if conditions improve, a return would differ significantly from the 1990s, with less enthusiasm and more caution from Western companies due to political and economic risks. The legal landscape also favors Russian entities, as demonstrated by Rusklimat's successful challenge to Ericsson's trademark.
- Why are some companies maintaining their trademarks in Russia despite ceasing operations, and what are the potential implications for future market competition?
- Companies maintaining trademarks aim to prevent competitors from using their brands and avoid the cost of re-registration, especially if a buyback option exists. However, the turbulent political situation makes a return unlikely for most, with only large companies strategically planning for a possible future return if the political climate shifts. This is a matter of long-term strategic planning, not immediate economic opportunity.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the actions of Western companies maintaining trademarks in Russia, potentially creating a narrative that suggests a desire for a return to the Russian market, even though the article itself points out that a return is unlikely due to political and economic factors. The repeated mention of headlines from Russian media about companies "returning" subtly shapes the reader's perception. The headline could also be considered framing bias, depending on the original headline.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, though the repeated use of phrases like "companies want to avoid..." in relation to trademark maintenance could be interpreted as subtly framing the companies' actions as self-serving rather than strategically motivated. The use of the word "turbulent" to describe the political situation is also somewhat loaded but arguably appropriate given the context.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the actions of Western companies regarding trademark registration in Russia, potentially omitting the perspectives of Russian businesses, consumers, or the Russian government. The long-term economic and social consequences of Western withdrawals are not deeply explored. While the article mentions that Chinese, Indian, and Middle Eastern companies are filling the void, it doesn't provide detailed analysis of their impact or potential negative consequences.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor scenario: companies either fully leave Russia or maintain their trademarks, without fully acknowledging the complexities of navigating sanctions, legal challenges, and potential future market re-entry. The nuances of partial withdrawals, asset sales, and varying degrees of disengagement are not thoroughly explored.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the withdrawal of over 460 international companies from Russia following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This mass exodus demonstrates a significant disruption to economic stability and international cooperation, hindering efforts towards peace and justice. The actions of some companies in maintaining or attempting to regain trademarks in Russia despite the invasion further complicates the situation and reflects ongoing geopolitical tensions. The actions of Russia in potentially nullifying trademarks also contributes to instability and injustice in the business environment.