An opposition is normally built on an earlier registered mark. Here the opponent had no Ukrainian registration at all — and still prevailed.

Decision of the Appeal Chamber of UANIPIO of 3 September 2026: the opposition of Acadian Seaplants Limited (Canada) was upheld in full, the decision to register the trademark «ACADIA» in the name of ADAMA Machteshim Ltd. (Israel) was set aside, and registration was refused for all goods applied for in class 5.

What happened

The Israeli applicant filed for «ACADIA» in class 5 — plant protection products. The examination raised no objection and on 26 September 2022 the Office decided to register the mark.

The Canadian company objected. It supplies products to the Ukrainian agricultural market through an official distributor, but owned no Ukrainian registration for «ACADIA». It relied instead on its trade name: «Acadian Seaplants Limited» and the short form «Acadian», under which the market knows it.

First ground: the trade name

Ukrainian law prohibits registration of signs that, as at the filing date, are identical with or confusingly similar to — including by association — trade names known in Ukraine and belonging to other persons who acquired rights in them before the filing date, in respect of the same or related goods and services.

The provision sets out four conditions, and all of them must be met at once. That is why oppositions of this kind rarely succeed — usually one element is missing.

• Similarity between the sign and the name. «ACADIA» against «Acadian» is effectively the same word minus one letter — shared root, same opening syllables, same visual impression;
• Reputation in Ukraine. Not in Canada, not worldwide — here. This is what has to be documented;
• Rights acquired earlier than the other party's filing date, that is, before 2021;
• Same or related goods. The Canadian company supplies the agricultural sector; the application covered plant protection products. One market, one buyer, the same distribution channels.

The key difference from an ordinary earlier-mark objection: a trade name is not registered. The right arises from actual use and there is no certificate to produce. For that very reason the reputation must be proved afresh in each dispute, and it is the Board that assesses it.

Why the short form decided the case

The Board accepted use of both the full corporate name and the short form «Acadian». That distinction decided the outcome.

The full name carries two further words — Seaplants and Limited — and on its own differs noticeably from «ACADIA». The short form under which the market identifies the company differs by a single letter.

So the opponent had to prove not only that it is present in Ukraine, but that it is actually referred to as «Acadian». Had the evidence shown the full name only, the similarity argument would have been considerably weaker.

Second ground: misleading as to origin

The opposition also relied on the sign being liable to mislead as to the person producing the goods. This is a separate ground and it operates differently: it does not compare two signs, it assesses the impression formed by the buyer.

A farmer who has bought the Canadian product for years and then sees «ACADIA» on the shelf is likely to assume it comes from the same producer — a new line, or a rebrand. That is precisely the deception the provision addresses.

The narrower and more professional the market, the stronger this ground becomes: where everyone knows a handful of suppliers, a false association forms easily.

The evidence, and why this particular set worked

• invoices and shipping documents — evidence of actual supplies, with dates, volumes and counterparties, not intentions;
• the distribution agreement — showing systematic presence rather than one-off shipments;
• publications in specialist agricultural media — these close the hardest point, reputation: one can supply quietly, but publications show the name was seen and read;
• advertising and information materials — showing the exact form of the name the company presents itself under;
• sales volumes and duration of use — converting all of the above into scale.

Equally important is to whom the reputation was proved. The law does not require the name to be known to the general public. Here it was enough that it was known to professional participants in the agricultural market — the people who actually buy these products. For narrow sectors that materially lowers the threshold.

Dates are everything

Reputation is assessed as at the filing date of the opposed application, not at the date of the dispute. The application was filed in 2021, so presence on the market had to be shown before that date.

The practical consequence is blunt: this evidence cannot be assembled retrospectively. Invoices, distribution agreements and publications either exist with those dates or they do not.

Why the case took four years

The decision to register was issued on 26 September 2022; the Appeal Chamber ruled on 3 September 2026, approved by order No. 256/2026 of 11 September 2026.

That is not a normal timeline. Ukrainian IP time limits — including those for filing and hearing oppositions — were suspended during martial law under Law No. 2174-IX of April 2022. Parliament repealed that law in April 2025 and the ordinary regime resumed.

For foreign counsel this is the practical takeaway: deferring action in Ukraine until the end of the war is no longer an option. An appeal against an Office decision must be filed within two months of receiving it, and that period now runs normally.

Outcome

• the opposition was upheld in full;
• the Office decision of 26 September 2022 to register «ACADIA» was set aside;
• registration was refused for all goods applied for in class 5;
• the opposition fee is refundable to the opponent.

Practical points for applicants and counsel

An unregistered but reputed trade name can defeat a pending registration in Ukraine. Useful to know if your client's name has been taken by a third party.

But only with documents. Not «everyone knows us», but invoices, agreements, publications and sales figures dated before the other side's filing.

And it is the expensive route. An opposition, an evidence file and years of proceedings, against a single application filed in time. A certificate does not require the reputation to be re-proved in every dispute.

For exporters and distributors there is a further point. If you are bringing a foreign brand into Ukraine, agree with the manufacturer who files the Ukrainian trademark and when. Otherwise a third party will — and the manufacturer will spend years winning the name back, as here.

If you are filing in Ukraine

We handle Ukrainian filings for foreign applicants and act as local counsel for IP firms: clearance searches, filings, responses to provisional refusals, oppositions before the Appeal Chamber, Madrid designations. More on how we work with IP firms.

See also: Free Ukrainian trademark search · Madrid designations in Ukraine