The lawsuit concerns a total of 25 national word and figurative marks for STOLICHNAYA and MOSKOVSKAYA in 13 countries: Italy, Switzerland, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Poland, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Cyprus. The dispute also revolves around the Benelux word and figurative mark SPI, both registered by Spirits.

The court has ruled that FKP owns the brands STOLICHNAYA and MOSKOVSKAYA in six of the thirteen countries, namely in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus, Sweden, Italy and the Czech Republic. Spirits is no longer allowed to use the brands in these countries. FKP's infringement claims are allowed for the United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus, Sweden and the Czech Republic. The situation in Italy is different than in these countries, because in Italy Spirits trades in vodka under marks that do not infringe on the Italian brands which, the court has established, are owned by FKP. In the other seven countries (Switzerland, France, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and Poland), the brands remain registered in Spirits' name. The SPI Benelux brands are declared invalid.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the then state-owned company VVO exploited the vodka brands STOLICHNAYA, MOSKOVSKAYA and SPI, which were registered in the name of VVO. It was long assumed that in 1991/1992 the VVO had transformed from a state-owned company to the private company VAO. In the 1990s the Russian Federation also promoted the idea that VAO, having been transformed into a private company, was the owner of the brands. Spirits ultimately bought the brands and is currently the registered trademark owner.

In late 1999, the Russian Federation took the standpoint that VVO was still the owner of the vodka brands. In 2017 the court ruled that in 1991/1992 VVO had not been transformed in a legal manner, so that the trademark rights had not passed from VVO to VAO by operation of law. The court has now determined, based on events in the period following the years 1991/1992, whether or not the successor of VVO may still claim those rights. The court has made a decision per country, based on the national laws of the thirteen countries concerned. The basis of the FKP's claims differ per country, just like the defences put forward by Spirits. This explains the different outcomes for the thirteen countries.