Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously they'd want to keep the trademark, otherwise they have no way to prevent those sold restaurants from "re-Arching" after the "de-Arching" :) If a country has gone sufficiently rogue to invade a neighbour, respect for property[0][1] - and by extension trademarks - appears to matter very little, at least for now? [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/16/business/russia-aircraft-... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news…
Russia is party to several international treaties that allow it to be sued outside of Russian courts if it doesn't uphold intellectual property law, and if those suits do not go Russia's way, then it is now possible that Russian assets can be seized as compensation. Or, to oversimplify it, if Russia decides that anyone can use McDonald's trademark, then maybe Gazprom's pipelines won't be Russian anymore.
We are in a weird spot where Russia is very much interested in economic relationships continuing more or less as is (exemplified by the conciliatory rhetoric from the Russian government, essentially they are saying "no hard feelings, return any time" to the departing companies) so will mostly respect property rights. OTOH the West sees financial and economic relationships as their main weapon in this war so most funky moves related to property rights will be initiated by the Western governments (e.g. many "sanctions" essentially are extrajudiciary property seizures).