Can an ordinary dictionary word be registered as a personal brand in Ukraine?

Yes, if it is shown that the relevant public identifies the sign with a particular person rather than reading it literally. Here the Board held the sign to be an invented creative pseudonym that had acquired that level of recognition.

What evidence of recognition works?

Concrete material: social media analytics and follower numbers, coverage in named publications, brand collaborations, participation in media projects, and other registrations already held in the applicant's name. General assertions of popularity do not suffice.

Can several grounds of refusal fall together?

Yes, where they share a premise. All three grounds here rested on treating the sign as an ordinary descriptive word; once the Board accepted it functions as a pseudonym, descriptiveness and deceptiveness lost their basis.

Does narrowing the specification help against descriptiveness?

It does. The applicant limited the goods and services during the proceedings, and the remaining objections could not stand against the narrowed list.

Is this relevant for foreign influencers filing in Ukraine?

Yes. The same approach applies to artist names, stage names and influencer brands: the case is usually won or lost on the evidence file showing recognition in Ukraine.

A Pseudonym as a Trademark: Three Grounds of Refusal Overturned

← Guides

A Ukrainian blogger was refused registration of her own pseudonym as a trademark — on three grounds at once. She appealed, and all three fell away together.

The case in brief

Applicant: a Ukrainian influencer publicly known under a pseudonym built on an ordinary Ukrainian adjective meaning «floral», with more than 1.8 million Instagram followers;
Grounds of refusal: lack of distinctive character; descriptiveness for goods made from flowers; liability to mislead as to the composition of the remaining goods;
Outcome: appeal upheld in full for a narrowed specification;
Date: 10 June 2026, approved by order No. 221/2026 of 6 August 2026.

Why it was refused

The application covered class 3 goods (cosmetics, perfumery) and services in classes 35 and 41. The examiner objected on all three grounds simultaneously, treating the sign as an ordinary dictionary word: an adjective derived from «flower».

The logic is familiar to any examiner: assessed in the abstract, detached from who is filing, the word looks descriptive for floral cosmetics and misleading for everything else.

The argument that changed the case: this is not a word, it is a person

Counsel did not dispute the dictionary meaning. Instead they proved that the sign had long ceased to be merely a word: it is a creative pseudonym under which a specific public figure is known.

The evidence filed was concrete — social media analytics, press coverage, brand collaborations, and a list of other Ukrainian marks already registered in the applicant's name.

Why it worked

The Appeal Chamber held expressly that the sign is an invented creative pseudonym which has acquired such recognition that the average consumer identifies it with a particular person rather than reading it literally.

Once that was established, the descriptiveness and deceptiveness objections lost their footing: a consumer who reads the sign as a personal brand does not read it as a statement about ingredients.

The narrowed specification did the rest

The applicant also limited the goods and services during the proceedings. Against the narrowed list the remaining objections could not stand.

All three grounds therefore fell at once — not because each was argued separately, but because all three rested on the same premise: that the sign is an ordinary descriptive word. Displace the premise and the structure collapses.

Practical points for personal brands

An ordinary word can be registered if it is genuinely your name in the eyes of the public. The point to prove is not the fact of use but that the audience recognises the person rather than the literal meaning.

Evidence of recognition must be concrete, not declaratory. Follower numbers, coverage in named publications, brand collaborations, participation in media projects — these are evidence. Assertions of popularity are not.

Narrowing the specification works here too. The same technique that decided the DEKSIL case against similarity worked here against descriptiveness: a tighter list reduces risk on any ground.

If you are filing personal-brand marks in Ukraine

Pseudonyms, artist names and influencer brands are a recurring category in Ukrainian practice, and they are usually won or lost on the evidence file. We advise on what to file, what to prove and how to frame the specification. More on how we work with IP firms.

Ask about clearance in Ukraine

Send us the sign and the classes — we will tell you what the Ukrainian register shows and where the risks sit. Or write to info@patent.rv.ua.

Source: decision of the Appeal Chamber of the National Intellectual Property Authority of 10 June 2026, approved by UANIPIO order No. 221/2026 of 6 August 2026, on the appeal concerning the trademark «kvitkova» for classes 3, 35 and 41.

Decisions of the Appeal Chamber are public documents, published among other things so that the practice can be studied. This note analyses the reasoning of the decision — the arguments raised and how the Board assessed them — not the procedural history of the case. It contains no assessment of the conduct of the parties or their representatives. Rivnepatent did not represent either party. This material is for information only and is not legal advice.

Author: Volodymyr Tarasiuk, Ukrainian patent and trademark attorney, Reg. No. 529

Source: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 10 August 2026 in case R 1791/2025-4 (CRASH birds (fig.) / ANGRY BIRDS et al.), cancellation proceedings No C 66 530, EUTM No 18 950 941. The decision in the EUIPO eSearch Case Law database.