Does an earlier mark built on a descriptive word block similar filings?

Only narrowly. The Board held that MALTIPOO, being the name of a dog breed, has limited distinctive character for related goods and services and does not determine the overall perception of the mark.

What evidence proves a trade name in Ukraine?

Objective indicators of reputation in Ukraine: scale of commercial activity, sales volumes, market share. Website and social media material alone were held insufficient, and a company extract dated after the opposed filing proved nothing as at the relevant date.

Does a copyright certificate block a later trademark?

Not automatically. The ground requires that the work be known in Ukraine and that the sign actually reproduce its title or fragments. The presence of the same words inside a compilation does not make every sign containing them a reproduction.

What happens if the applicant does not respond to an opposition?

Filing a response is a right, not an obligation. The case is decided on the available material, and the burden of proof remains on the opponent — here the applicant neither appeared nor responded, and the opposition still failed.

Do social media followers help in Ukrainian proceedings?

They are not evidence of rights. Reputation is established by commercial indicators rather than audience size.

MALTIPOO: Four Grounds, Three Earlier Marks

← Guides

The owner of three earlier Ukrainian marks containing the element MALTIPOO tried to stop registration of MALTIPOO WORLD CLUB. She had earlier registrations, an Instagram account with 72,000 followers and a copyright certificate. She lost on all four grounds.

What happened

In February 2025 UANIPIO decided to register a composite mark MALTIPOO WORLD CLUB — a stylised dog in a laurel wreath with wording beneath — for classes 9, 41 and 44.

The owner of three earlier registrations (MALTIPOO World, a composite version of it, and MALTIPOO SHOP, registered in classes 18, 20 and 35) opposed on four grounds. On 9 July 2026 the Board dismissed the opposition on every one of them.

Ground one: similarity to the earlier marks

The opponent argued that MALTIPOO dominates all of the signs and that MALTIPOO WORLD is reproduced in full in the opposed mark.

The Board compared the signs on the usual three limbs and found the added words changed the sound, the figurative elements differed (a dog in a laurel wreath against a crown), and the concepts conveyed were different.

Then came the decisive finding: MALTIPOO is the name of a dog breed. For goods and services connected with that breed the element has limited distinctive character and does not determine how the mark is perceived as a whole.

A further point: the goods and services were not similar. The opposed application covered classes 9, 41 and 44; the earlier marks are registered in classes 18, 20 and 35.

Ground two: trade name

The opponent claimed use of MALTIPOO World as a trade name since 2016, well before the opposed filing, supported by website and social media material.

The Board accepted that the material showed use online. But that was not enough: to succeed on this ground the name must be known in Ukraine as designating a specific business entity in relation to the relevant goods and services.

What was missing: data on the scale of commercial activity in Ukraine, sales volumes, market share — objective indicators of reputation. An extract on the registration of a foreign company was also dated December 2024, that is after the opposed filing date, so it proved no rights as at the relevant date.

The contrast with the ACADIA case is instructive: there the same ground succeeded, because the file contained invoices, a distribution agreement, trade press and sales figures predating the application.

Ground three: misleading as to the producer

The Board disagreed that consumers would attribute the goods to the same business. Repetition of the words MALTIPOO and WORLD does not create that association, because the sign contains no element unambiguously identifying a particular trader: MALTIPOO is a breed name, WORLD and CLUB are ordinary words.

Ground four: copyright in the logo

During the proceedings the opponent added a further ground: a copyright registration certificate for a compilation including graphic works.

The Board explained that this ground requires a combination of conditions: the work must be known in Ukraine and the sign must actually reproduce its title or fragments of it. Internet publications and social media material do not by themselves establish that.

And a point of principle: the mere presence of the words MALTIPOO WORLD inside a compilation does not mean that any sign containing those words reproduces the work.

The applicant did not appear — and won

A procedural detail that explains a great deal. The applicant was notified repeatedly, did not appear and filed no response. Filing a response is a right, not an obligation, and the case was decided on the material available.

The opposition failed because the burden of proof lies on the opponent. The applicant did not have to prove its case; the opponent had to prove hers, and did not.

Practical points

A mark built on a descriptive word gives no monopoly over that word. Where the name is a breed, a product category or an industry term, expect neighbours with similar names. Protection works, but far more narrowly than the certificate suggests.

File in the classes where you actually trade, and watch adjacent ones. Here the earlier marks sat in classes 18, 20 and 35 while the opposed application went to 9, 41 and 44 — formally no overlap.

Followers are not evidence of rights. Reputation of a trade name is proved by volumes of activity, sales and market share.

A copyright certificate does not substitute for a trademark. It does not automatically block a third-party registration.

An opposition is a process with a burden of proof. Filing is not enough; the file must close every element of the ground relied on.

If you are assessing an opposition in Ukraine

We advise on the real prospects before an opposition is filed — including what evidence will actually be required — and represent parties before the Appeal Chamber. 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 9 July 2026, approved by UANIPIO order No. 239/2026 of 25 August 2026, on the opposition against registration of the composite mark «MALTIPOO WORLD CLUB», application No. m202315746.

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.