UKRAINE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yaroslav Ognevyuk and Tetiana Ognevyuk, AMBASSADORS
ance were present. Regulatory references had been provided, and internal programmes were cited. The Court focused on the surrounding circumstances. This type of reasoning is becoming more common, although not yet entirely consistent. It assessed the scale of the import, its timing and its economic plausibility. The analysis did not stop at how the activity was described; it extended to its potential commercial impact. The conclusion followed from that broader assessment. More importantly, it reflects a gradual shift in judicial reasoning. Courts are increasingly attentive to eco- nomic substance and commercial intent. Formal com- pliance remains relevant, but it is no longer decisive on its own. In practice, the outcome of such cases often depends as much on the availability of evidence as on the underlying legal arguments. For rights holders, this changes the logic of enforce- ment. Waiting for an unequivocal infringement is often insufficient. By that stage, the market position may already be affected in ways that legal remedies can- not fully reverse. Protection, therefore, depends on earlier intervention. It requires identifying points at which formally lawful behaviour begins to interfere with market control and responding before that interference becomes irrevers- ible. In practice, enforcement often becomes a ques- tion of speed rather than legal qualification. This also increases the importance of interim measures, which in some cases may be the only way to preserve a meaningful position in the market. Sanctions, regulation and the expanding legal context The enforcement landscape is further shaped by the interaction between intellectual property and regula- tory frameworks, including sanctions regimes. In certain situations, rights holders, distributors or counterparties may be subject to Ukrainian or interna- tional sanctions. This introduces legal questions that extend beyond traditional IP analysis. The ability to enforce rights, receive payments or maintain contrac-
tual relationships may depend on restrictions imposed by sanctions law rather than on IP rules themselves. As a result, intellectual property can no longer be assessed in isolation. Its use is conditioned by a broader regulatory environment that affects how rights are exercised and monetised. This interaction is particularly relevant in cross-border structures, where ownership, licensing and distribu- tion are spread across multiple jurisdictions. What appears to be a straightforward IP arrangement may, in practice, be constrained by compliance consid- erations that operate independently of the underlying rights. For businesses and investors, this reinforces the need to treat IP as part of a wider legal and regu- latory framework rather than as a standalone asset. In some situations, this creates outcomes where IP rights formally exist but cannot be used in a commer- cially meaningful way. War, supply chains and the expansion of illicit trade The war has changed how markets function in Ukraine. It has affected logistics, altered distribution patterns and reduced visibility over product flows. Supply chains have become more fragmented. Routes have shifted, sometimes repeatedly, and businesses have had to adapt quickly, often under pressure. In this process, gaps have begun to appear in the flow of goods from production to the end consumer, and they are not always immediately visible. Those gaps have not remained empty for long. Illicit trade has expanded, but not always in its traditional form. Counterfeit goods persist, yet a more complex issue is the circulation of genuine products outside authorised channels. These goods may enter the market in compliance with formal import procedures, while still undermining the rights holder’s control over distribution. In some cases, this reflects a broader policy tension between ensuring access to goods and preserving the integrity of intellectual property rights.
389 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook