The Supreme Court, for the first time, provided important explanations regarding the right to a name in its Plenum decision “On the Protection of Personal Rights” adopted on December 24, 2025.
This was reported to “Elchi” by the court.
It was stated that just as a natural person has the right to a name consisting of a given name, patronymic, surname, and pseudonym (fictitious name), a legal entity also has the right to a name consisting of a firm, commercial, or enterprise name.
Unauthorized use of a person’s name by another, its presentation in an incorrect or distorted manner, deceptive actions using a person’s name, public dissemination of a natural person’s name when it should be anonymized (confidential), and other such unlawful behaviors are considered illegal interference with personal rights and create civil liability.
Deceptive actions using a person’s name refer to behaviors committed against both natural and legal persons, such as creating fake social media accounts, preparing and distributing business cards using a person’s name to attract customers, engaging in unfair competition by changing a letter in a legal entity’s name, placing labels bearing the name of a well-known sewing factory on one’s own clothing products, and other such unlawful actions.
Persons whose right to a name has been violated can, by filing a civil claim, use methods of protecting personal rights such as recognition of the violation, its elimination – deletion, anonymization, concealment, correction of the name or providing a response, an apology from the media entity, publication of a court decision regarding the violation in the media, and so on.
Natural persons subjected to the aforementioned actions can, in addition to these methods, also demand compensation for material and moral damages incurred.
Legal entities, however, cannot claim moral damages; they can only demand compensation for material damages incurred as a result of the violation.