The Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region voided the agreement that transferred an exclusive intellectual property license covering the Baltika Brewing Company LLC products and brand to Karlsberg Kazakhstan, a subsidiary of Carlsberg. The decision was issued on July 19, 2023, and, as reported by the newspaper Vedomosti, the court granted the claim brought by Karlsberg Kazakhstan, announcing that the license transfer did not stand under the applicable legal framework.
During the previous summer, Baltika’s leadership authorized the transfer of trademark rights in Baltika to several Carlsberg entities operating across the region. The agreements covered markets in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Mongolia, and Turkmenistan, with Karlsberg Kazakhstan explicitly named among the signatories to these arrangements.
The signing of these agreements occurred in the absence of Taimuraz Bolloev, who heads the Russian Baltika entity. In December, Alexander Dedegkaev, who serves as the first vice president of Baltika Brewing Company LLC, addressed a letter to the Russian presidential administration indicating that the power to sign on behalf of Baltika had lapsed at the time the documents were executed. This raised questions about the validity of the powers of attorney used in the deals. Consequently, Carlsberg’s regional units obtained the rights to the Baltika trademarks, with the option to extend the licenses for another two decades, effectively shaping the long-term strategic control over the Baltika brand in several markets.
Earlier statements from Danish parent companies hinted at ambitions to maintain a presence in Russia despite broader geopolitical tensions and regulatory developments. The court’s ruling adds a layer of legal scrutiny to these ambitions, signaling that resolutions of cross-border IP transfers involving subsidiaries may require careful verification of authority and compliance with national corporate governance rules. Observers note that the case may influence future licensing practices within international corporate groups centered on beer brands, especially where multi-jurisdictional approvals and power-of-attorney documents intersect with regulatory expectations.
From a practical standpoint, the decision underscores the importance for multinational brands to ensure that all signatories have verified authority to act on behalf of their corporate affiliates in the relevant jurisdiction. It also highlights the role of domestic courts in scrutinizing cross-border IP licenses when corporate governance gaps or gaps in signatory authority appear to undermine the contractual framework. For stakeholders in the Baltika portfolio and its Carlsberg connections, the ruling potentially affects ongoing licensing strategies, renewal opportunities, and territorial rights that were previously assumed to be secure under the transferred agreements. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the implications of this case may prompt a reevaluation of how licenses are structured, documented, and validated across markets where Baltika operates under Carlsberg’s umbrella.