Short, practical guides to protecting a trademark in Ukraine — written by our Ukrainian patent attorneys for foreign applicants and IP firms.
Cases ·
CRICOVA: A Brand Registered to Someone Else in Ukraine
Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 16 September 2026 in case No. 522/3068/24: the dispute of the CRICOVA winery over eight trademark certificates registered to an individual «with subsequent assignment of the rights» was remitted for a new hearing.
Read →Cases ·
w walky: A Store Name Is Not Yet a Brand on Goods
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of UANIPIO of 8 June 2026: the opposition of the owner of the WALKER store chain against registration of «w walky» (composite) for goods in classes 18 and 25 was rejected.
Read →Assignments and Licences in Ukraine: the Register Entry Decides
How assignments and licences of Ukrainian trademarks operate: the transfer takes effect on the register entry, licences must contain quality control provisions, and co-owners must act jointly.
Read →Cases ·
ACADIA: How a Trade Name Stopped a Trademark Registration in Ukraine
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of UANIPIO of 3 September 2026: the opposition of Acadian Seaplants Limited was upheld in full and the decision to register ACADIA was set aside, on the basis of a trade name known in Ukraine.
Read →Cases ·
Animal Farm and 1984: When Fame Defeats Registration
Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 27 May 2026: registration of ANIMAL FARM and 1984 was refused as descriptive of the subject matter of the goods and services.
Read →Cases ·
DEKSIL: Similar Signs, Different Goods — and the Appeal Succeeded
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of 4 June 2026: similarity of the signs was confirmed, but the goods were held dissimilar after the specification was narrowed to prescription analgesics for acute pain, and the mark proceeded to registration.
Read →Cases ·
Ewe v EBEWE: Containment Is Not Similarity
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of 30 June 2026: the opposition of EBEWE Pharma against the Ukrainian mark «Ewe» was dismissed; conceptual difference and dissimilar goods outweighed the shared letters.
Read →Cases ·
A Pseudonym as a Trademark: Three Grounds of Refusal Overturned
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of 10 June 2026: refusal on grounds of lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness and deceptiveness was overturned because the sign was held to be a recognised creative pseudonym.
Read →Cases ·
MALTIPOO: Four Grounds, Three Earlier Marks — and the Opposition Failed
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of 9 July 2026: an opposition based on three earlier marks, a trade name, deceptiveness and copyright was dismissed on all four grounds; MALTIPOO was held to have limited distinctive character as a breed name.
Read →Cases ·
UAH 186,000 for Two Songs: Music Licensing Enforcement in Ukraine
Judgment of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv of 17 August 2026: UAH 153,088 statutory compensation for unlicensed public performance of two works, plus UAH 30,000 in legal costs.
Read →Cases ·
Rodent Off v OFF!: A Shared Word Is Not Enough in Ukraine
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of 10 June 2026: the opposition of S.C. Johnson against the Ukrainian mark «Родент Офф» was dismissed in full; the added word shifted the conceptual emphasis and the goods were not held similar.
Read →Cases ·
Descriptive Marks in Ukraine: Why Evidence of Use Did Not Help
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of 8 July 2026: the appeal against refusal of the word sign «СМЕТАНА ДО БОРЩУ» was dismissed; evidence of acquired distinctiveness failed because the sign used was composite while the sign filed was a plain word mark.
Read →Cases ·
STEKLA FAR: Why Figurative Styling Did Not Save a Ukrainian Application
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of UANIPIO of 28 July 2026: the decision to register «STEKLA FAR» for class 35 was set aside on the basis of the earlier word mark «STEKLAFAR» registered for class 11 goods.
Read →Cases ·
SUPERMAC'S v BIG MAC: When the Shared Element Decides
Decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 30 June 2026: registration of SUPERMAC'S was refused for likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark BIG MAC.
Read →Cases ·
SUPEROPTIK: When a Device Element Strengthens Similarity
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of UANIPIO of 15 July 2026: the appeal against refusal of the word mark «СУПЕРОПТІК» was dismissed; the figurative element of the earlier mark was held to reinforce rather than remove the similarity.
Read →Cases ·
VOSS v Marlboro: A Shared Design Element Is Not Imitation
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of 9 July 2026: the opposition of Philip Morris against the three-dimensional VOSS pack mark was dismissed; privately commissioned expert opinions from both sides were disregarded.
Read →Cases ·
Winter fresh: A Shared Word Is Not Similarity
Decision of the Appeal Chamber of UANIPIO of 19 June 2026: the opposition against «Winter fresh» was dismissed in full; the shared descriptive element, the generic oval device and the well-known mark all failed to establish similarity.
Read →The Filing Date in Ukraine: What It Gives Before the Certificate
How the Ukrainian filing date operates: it fixes priority immediately, exclusive rights arise on registration with retroactive effect, and it opens a six-month convention priority window.
Read →Missed a Deadline in Ukraine: Withdrawn Applications and Restoration
How a Ukrainian trademark application is deemed withdrawn for failure to respond, the six-month restoration window, and the due care condition that applies to it.
Read →Power of Attorney for Ukrainian Trademark Filings: What Is Required
Requirements for a power of attorney in Ukrainian trademark matters: signature only, no notarisation or legalisation, and filing can proceed before the executed document is submitted.
Read →™ and ® in Ukraine: Which Symbol, and When
When ™ and ® may be used in Ukraine: ™ from the filing date, ® only after the certificate issues and only in the country of registration.
Read →Trademark or Industrial Design in Ukraine: Which Protects What
How Ukrainian trademarks and industrial designs differ: requirements, terms, maintenance fees and unregistered protection, and when both instruments are needed.
Read →Renewing a Ukrainian Trademark: Dates, Grace Period, Fees
How Ukrainian trademark renewals work: the term runs from the filing date, the fee must be paid within the last six months of the term, and a six-month grace period applies with a 50 per cent surcharge.
Read →Word, Composite or Figurative: What to File in Ukraine
How word, composite and figurative marks differ in Ukraine: scope of protection, ease of registration, colour claims, and matching evidence of use to the mark as filed.
Read →Cases ·
CRASH birds v ANGRY BIRDS: Why a Different Sector Did Not Save the Mark
Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 10 August 2026 in case R 1791/2025-4: the EU mark CRASH birds, registered for gambling services, was declared invalid for bad faith.
Read →Trademark & IP Registration in Ukraine: FAQ
Straight answers to common questions about registering trademarks, patents and designs in Ukraine — cost, timeline, foreign applicants, Madrid, refusals, oppositions and enforcement.
Read →Madrid System Designations in Ukraine
Designating Ukraine in an international registration: the 18-month window the office has to notify a refusal, the three-month term to respond, when a local representative is required, and what happens after an opposition.
Read →How Long Does Trademark Registration Take in Ukraine?
The timeline for registering a trademark in Ukraine, stage by stage, and why protection starts on the filing date.
Read →How to Register a Trademark in Ukraine: Step-by-Step Timeline
The timeline, examination stages, costs and the Madrid route for registering a trademark in Ukraine.
Read →Responding to a Provisional Refusal from the Ukrainian IP Office
What a provisional refusal in Ukraine means, the deadline to respond, and how refusals are usually overcome.
Read →Trademark Oppositions in Ukraine: Deadlines and Procedure
Opposing a trademark application in Ukraine, or defending one — the three-month window, grounds, procedure and response deadlines.
Read →Trademark Protection in Ukraine During Wartime: What Still Works
Why trademark protection in Ukraine still works during the war — the office operates, deadlines run normally, and filing now secures priority for the recovery.
Read →Trademark Registration Costs in Ukraine: Official Fees + Attorney Fees
How the cost of registering a trademark in Ukraine breaks down — official fees, attorney fees, per-class pricing, and the Madrid alternative.
Read →