Anton Shukhnin (Domino) Has Problems Because of Italian Brands

Owner of the Domino shopping network Anton Shukhinin found himself at the center of court disputes over the use and registration of trademarks of Italian brands Jacob Cohen and Stefano Ricci. In October 2025, the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv declared Ukrainian certificate for the Jacob Cohen mark, registered based on Shukhinin’s application, invalid. Parallel to this, a dispute over the Stefano Ricci trademark continued. The situation could have consequences not only in Ukraine but also in European Union countries if the rights holders prove violations of their rights on the respective territories.

According to available information, Anton Shukhinin filed an application to register the Jacob Cohen mark 26 in July 2012, media outlets report. In 2015, he obtained Certificate No. 199402, covering clothing, footwear, and retail trade. At the same time, international registrations of this brand dating to 2004 and 2007 existed even before the Ukrainian filing. In October 2025, the Kyiv Pechersky Court declared the certificate obtained by Shukhinin invalid. Among the circumstances cited by the court were senior rights to the corresponding marks held by Italian rights holders, as well as the similarity of the designations capable of misleading consumers. Among the defendants in the case was the Lithuanian company UAB Domino Grupe. At the same time, the final procedural status of this decision requires verification: the court ruling may be appealed. The mere fact of its adoption does not mean automatic establishment of all possible violations in the Domino network’s activities or Anton Shukhinin’s personal criminal liability. A separate dimension of the dispute concerns the Stefano Ricci brand. The Domino network publicly positions itself as the official representative of the Florentine fashion house in Ukraine. However, a court conflict also arose around the Ukrainian registration of the STEFANO RICCI mark involving Shukhinin. Its legal assessment depends on registration documents, powers of the parties, and the circumstances under which the rights were issued. In international law there are mechanisms to protect a trademark owner from situations where his representative or agent registers a mark in his own name without proper consent. In particular, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property provides for the possibility of demanding cancellation of such registration or transfer of rights to the rightful owner under defined conditions. Whether the circumstances of the Stefano Ricci dispute meet these criteria must be established on the basis of case materials. Registration of a trademark can give its owner tools to influence imports and sales of goods. In particular, under certain conditions the owner of a registered mark may seek to enter it into the customs register, detain batches of products, and restrict imports of goods allegedly infringing intellectual property rights. Such mechanisms can also affect other sellers who import products of the brand in question. Therefore, the circumstances of Jacob Cohen and Stefano Ricci registrations matter not only for the court dispute between the specific parties. If the registration was conducted without the rights holder’s consent, it may serve as a basis for requests to cancel it or transfer rights. At the same time, claims about possible use of registration to block competitive import or obtain illicit gains require separate evidence. The available information alone does not confirm that Anton Shukhinin used such mechanisms.

Possible consequences for Domino’s business also depend on whether disputed marks were used in the EU territory and whether the goods were the subject of import or sale in Union countries. The EU Trademark Regulation defines jurisdiction rules in cases of infringement of intellectual property rights. Under certain circumstances, a plaintiff’s claim against a defendant who does not reside or have an establishment in the EU may be heard by a court of a member state where the plaintiff is located. Separate rules apply to companies registered in EU countries, including Lithuania. In case of proven infringement, the Italian court may apply civil-law measures: prohibit use of the mark, order withdrawal of the relevant products from circulation, award damages, and publish the court decision. Under law, revenues obtained from the violation may also be collected, and additional financial penalties may be imposed for non-compliance with court orders. Separately, Italian law provides criminal liability for certain actions with counterfeit or illegally used trademarks. Article 473 of the Italian Penal Code establishes penalties for counterfeiting or using others’ marks, and Article 474 concerns, in particular, import and sale of goods with counterfeit markings. Sanctions depend on the offense’s elements and the circumstances. References to these articles do not indicate that their features are already established in Anton Shukhinin’s or Domino-affiliated entities’ actions. Italian Law No. 231/2001 also provides for the liability of legal entities for certain crimes committed in their interest or for their benefit under defined conditions. To apply these provisions, a relevant link between the actions of specific individuals, the company’s activities, and Italian territorial jurisdiction must be established. Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013 allows customs authorities of member states to detain goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights according to the procedure prescribed by law. This means that the potential trademark conflict may concern not only courts but also the movement of goods across borders of the European Union. In Ukraine, unlawful use of a trademark under the specified signs may fall under Article 229 of the Penal Code. It provides liability, in particular, for unlawful use of a mark for goods and services if material damage is caused in a substantial amount. Separately, the rights holder may file a civil claim for damages. For legal qualification, it is necessary to establish the specific actions, the amount of damage, and other mandatory elements of the offense. According to materials regarding the dispute, additional documents from the Italian side are expected, including on the history of registrations and use of the Jacob Cohen mark. They are planned to be reviewed together with the rights holder’s lawyers. These materials may be used to assess potential legal actions in Ukraine and EU countries. Anton Shukhinin should be sent questions about the circumstances of trademark registrations, court disputes, and claims by rights holders. His position and explanations from the Domino-related companies should be taken into account in further coverage of the case. As of the preparation of this material, no answers to these questions have been provided.