UKRAINE Law and Practice Contributed by: Yaroslav Ognevyuk, AMBASSADORS
use may play a role in unfair competition claims and disputes involving well-known marks. Competitive pressure on brands is a defining charac- teristic of the Ukrainian market. This becomes par- ticularly visible in the FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods), electronics, and agrochemical sectors, where counterfeiting, grey imports, and bad-faith filings remain widespread. In this environment, trade marks operate as actively defended assets rather than pas- sive identifiers. At the same time, further alignment with EU proce- dures is expected to reshape the system. Legislative initiatives and policy discussions indicate a poten- tial shift away from examination on relative grounds, which would transfer a greater share of risk to rights holders. If implemented, this approach would require applicants to rely more heavily on opposition proceed- ings and active portfolio monitoring. In this evolving model, trade mark protection becomes less examiner- driven and more market-policed. 2.2 Requirements for Trade Mark Protection To obtain trade mark protection in Ukraine, a sign must be distinctive and capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others. While this reflects a standard international approach, the practical threshold for distinctiveness is often applied strictly, particularly for descriptive or inherently weak marks. Acquired distinctiveness may be recognised, but the evidentiary burden is substantial. Applicants are typi- cally required to demonstrate long-term, consistent use, market recognition, and, in many cases, support- ing evidence such as market surveys, advertising data, and sales figures. Success depends on the volume of evidence and on how convincingly it demonstrates a clear link between the sign and the relevant consumer. Well-known trade marks enjoy enhanced protection, including in the absence of registration in Ukraine. However, recognition as a well-known mark is not automatic and requires a separate, evidence-intensive procedure. This mechanism is frequently used as a strategic tool in disputes, particularly where registra- tion gaps or bad-faith filings exist.
Bad-faith applications remain a persistent feature of the Ukrainian trade mark landscape. Third parties may opportunistically seek to register identical or similar marks, including in anticipation of international brands’ market entry. While the legal framework pro- vides mechanisms to challenge such filings, enforce- ment is time-sensitive and depends on early detection and procedural discipline. Such filings often intensify ahead of the anticipated entry of international brands into the Ukrainian market. Trade mark protection in Ukraine is not secured by filing alone. It depends on evidence, timing, and the ability to respond quickly to bad-faith filings and mar- ket interference. It is secured through evidence, tim- ing, and control – particularly in a market where third- party behaviour is often proactive rather than reactive. 2.3 Trade Mark Registration System Trade mark applications in Ukraine are filed with the Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations (UANIPIO), which conducts both formal and substantive examination. While the procedure is broadly aligned with European practice, its effective- ness depends on applicant strategy and timing. The process includes filing, formal examination, pub- lication, and substantive examination covering both absolute and relative grounds. Objections based on relative grounds are common and may significantly delay registration, particularly where similar earlier marks exist on the register. A key feature of the Ukrainian system is the impor- tance of pre-filing clearance. Given the density of existing registrations and overlapping rights, failure to identify potential conflicts at an early stage may result in prolonged examination or refusal. Third-party observations and opposition-like mecha- nisms are available, although they are less formalised than in some EU jurisdictions. Disputes are typically resolved through a combination of examination-stage arguments and subsequent administrative or court proceedings. Decisions of the patent office may be challenged before the Appeal Chamber, which serves as a spe-
370 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook