Given that international law was broken and civilians are dying, facing civil disputes over contract interpretation seems trivial. As with McDonalds, companies can have Russian (and probably Chinese) customers at the moment or customers elsewhere in the world. Their call.

As I've typed before, choices have consequences.

TFA says that the brand literally cannot leave because they don't own it. It's devolved to local entities that they do not control.

There are consequences -- that their names are associated with not divesting, while their competitors do. They would probably be willing to accept the civil disputes, if they could, but they can't.

The most they can do is to make a demand that they stop using their name, and get laughed at.