In the midst of the trademark process, Steaua revealed how much money it made from them in 2025: “Three contracts in progress”

In full process regarding the cancellation of trademarks owned by Steaua Bucharestlibertatea.ro asked the Army club how much money it produced, in the calendar year 2025, from the capitalization of brands from its own portfolio.

They are trademarks that the FCSB is seeking to cancel in a filing whose most recent deadline was Monday, October 21. The High Court remained in judgment, the next decision depending on the response that the request for recusal of one of the judges will receive.

How much money did Steaua București make from capitalizing on its own brands in 2025

In an answer initialed by the new manager of the club, Eduard Danilof, Steaua reported that it produced, from the capitalization of license contracts on trademarks, the amount of 40,272 lei, the equivalent of 7,922 euros at today's BNR rate.

“Club Sportiv al Armatei Steaua exploits the brands through brand license contracts concluded with legal entities, which have made official requests for their use, in accordance with the provisions of Law 84/1998 on brands and geographical indications.

CSA Steaua has 3 brand license contracts in progressconcluded with Auchan Romania, SC Rod-94 Serv-Com SRL and SC Total Team Distribution SRL. The object of these contracts is the sale of sports products and equipment inscribed with the name and logo “Steaua Bucuresti”.

The value of these contracts is not fixed, and the remuneration due to CSA Steaua consists of a license fee in the amount of 15% of the value of the sales made.

As a result, in 2025, from the capitalization of license contracts, our club collected 40,272 lei.

The brand license contracts were concluded in accordance with the provisions of the internal procedure, regarding brands and geographical indications and of the Organizational Regulation of CSA Steaua, approved by Order of the Minister of National Defense no. M 115/ 2013, with subsequent amendments and additions,” the CSA's response states.

The situation in the cancellation process of Stella's brands

We remind you that in the trademark file, CSA Steaua was deprived of the right to use four trademarks in 2019.

FCSB requests that the rest of the trademarks owned by Steaua be cancelled. It is about the AS Armata coat of arms from 1947, the CCA coat of arms, the Citius, Altius, Fortius eagle coat of arms, respectively the coat of arms currently used by the Stella Football Section.

In March 2024, the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected as unfounded, on grounds of lack of interest, the FCSB's request to cancel these trademarks.

FCSB filed an appeal, accepted in principle by the ÎCCJ, which set the first deadline on October 21, 2025.

Currently, there are two scenarios: The High Court accepts the FCSB's appeal and quashes the Court of Appeal's decision – in other words, sends the case for retrial to the CAB – or rejects the appeal and the 2024 decision remains final.

It is very important if the request made by Florin Talpan at the deadline of October 21, that one of the judges from the panel of 3 be refused, will be admitted. If not, it is possible that the ÎCCJ will rule on the appeal on November 4.

Why the FCSB requested the cancellation of those marks: “They registered them in bad faith!”

The verdict on the trademarks is central to the trial in which the CSA is asking the FCSB for 37 million euros in damagesfor the fraudulent use of the Steaua brand and name in the period 2003-2014.

FCSB lawyer Adrian Căvescu explained in dialogue with GSP:

“There is a demand for 37 million euros under those trademarks! That suit is suspended pending this case. If it is rejected, the damage case is reopened. If the appeal is allowed and sent to the Court of Appeal, it will take another 2 years to hear the appeal and again the appeal.

We think we have our chances to win. Anything can be blamed on us, but not that we are uninterested. If 37 million euros is not an interest, then what interest do you have? The entire tort suit hinges on the existence of their brands. But we stated that their trademarks were registered in bad faith.

Why? Their trademarks have been registered since 2004. The High Court, in the record process, said that they no longer have active procedural status since 1998. If they no longer have [calitate procesuală] and they closed the football section, [pe care] we took it over, the generals and Talpan were coming to the matches, what is the CSA doing? Does it go to OSIM and register the brands in their name? That's bad faith.

They then registered trademarks for all product and service categories. Online stores, restaurants, hospitals, whatever. They have created a blocking brand, they say in the field of intellectual property. And you are not allowed to do that!

Even Ferrari and Coca-Cola did not register the brands from 1 to 45. When you do that, you show that you are afraid of competition, of competition, that you want to “clean up” everything.”