A case from our practice

Ukraine's office found the cookie name «МАТУСИНЕ» of Yarych Confectionery Factory similar to the long-registered mark «Мамулин» — for the whole of class 30. We narrowed the list to cookies, showed the difference between the signs, and the mark was registered.

The case in brief

• Sign: the word mark «МАТУСИНЕ» in standard characters; Ukrainian application No. m202409022 of 3 May 2024;
• Applicant: Yarych Confectionery Factory LLC, a producer of cookies and other flour confectionery from the Lviv region;
• Specification: initially the whole of Nice class 30, 313 items; after narrowing, five kinds of cookies;
• Outcome: certificate No. 389459 of 15 July 2026.

The objection: «Мамулин»

A preliminary conclusion of 7 November 2025 found that the applied-for sign «is so similar that it may be confused, in particular associated» with the word mark «Мамулин» of Trading House Konti LLC (certificate No. 73949, application of 2005) for the same and related goods.

The ground was article 6(3) of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services (the Law): a sign cannot be registered if it is identical or confusingly similar to a mark registered earlier in Ukraine in the name of another person for the same or related goods.

The objection was serious. «Мамулин» is registered for class 30 with a detailed list that expressly names both cookies and wafer cakes, so the goods overlap. And in meaning both words say the same thing: «mum's». The Rules approved by Order of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine No. 19889 of 6 August 2024 (the Rules) list among the signs of semantic similarity the «similarity of the concepts and ideas embedded in the signs» (point 17 of chapter 8 of section VI).

Our response

The applicant had two months from receipt of the conclusion to respond. The response was filed on 7 January 2026 with seven annexes.

We narrowed the list to cookies. Of the 313 items in class 30, five remained: cookies; biscuits (galette type); sandwich cookies; galette sandwich cookies; dry biscuits. This is what the applicant sells under the name.

We showed that the signs differ. «Матусине» is formed from the word «мати» (mother) and points to a homemade, traditional origin of the product. «Мамулин» is a colloquial form with a different stylistic colouring and word structure. There is a shared idea, but the overall impression of the signs is different.

Different products on the shelf. «Мамулин» is associated with a wafer cake, a layered product consumed in a different way. Buyers do not see cookies and a wafer cake as interchangeable, even when they sit in the same chain.

Actual use. «Матусине» cookies are sold by the ATB, Silpo and Novus chains and by online shops, and the name is used on the factory's website and social media. At the time of the response a Google search for «Матусине» returned the applicant's products.

We also noted that the owner of «Мамулин» had made no claims against the applicant and that we had found no current offers of goods under that mark in open sources.

Outcome

• on 25 June 2026 the office concluded that the sign meets the conditions for protection for all goods in the narrowed list;
• on 15 July 2026 the trademark was registered under certificate No. 389459; it runs until 3 May 2034 and can be renewed.

The conclusion does not say which arguments persuaded the examiner; it only records that the conditions for protection are met.

Our view: why it worked

The decision gives no direct answer, so what follows is our assessment.

Narrowing alone did not decide the case: cookies are named expressly in the list of «Мамулин». So the examiner accepted that the signs themselves differ. The Rules require the signs to be considered «as a whole, without dividing them into separate elements» (point 16 of chapter 8 of section VI). In sound and appearance «МАТУСИНЕ» and «Мамулин» are clearly different: other consonants, another length, another ending. And the shared idea of «mum's» for baked goods points to the homemade character of the product rather than to a particular producer. The Appeal Chamber used similar reasoning in the Winter fresh case: a shared element that describes a quality of the goods does not determine the perception of the sign as a whole.

We see the non-use argument as secondary. The examiner does not check whether an earlier mark is used: early revocation for non-use is a matter for the courts (article 18(4) of the Law). Besides, certificate No. 73949 was renewed in 2025 until 7 November 2035.

This application ran in parallel with another case of the same factory, a three-dimensional mark for the shape of THE CRACKERS cracker. Both marks were registered on the same day, 15 July 2026.

Practical points

Claim what you make. An application covering a whole class «just in case» attracts citations from the whole class. A short list of real goods is easier to defend.

Close meaning is not yet similarity. Compare the signs by sound, appearance and meaning, and then by overall impression. A shared idea weighs less when it describes the character of the product. Rodent Off v OFF!: a shared word is not enough.

Show the market. Where the goods are sold, under what name, what the buyer sees: this does not replace legal arguments, but makes them more convincing.

Non-use of someone else's mark is a separate procedure. If an old unused mark blocks you, examination will not remove it. Responding to a provisional refusal from the Ukrainian IP office.

Questions and answers

If your client faces a refusal in Ukraine

We prepare responses to preliminary conclusions and Madrid provisional refusals, narrow specifications where it helps, gather evidence of use and acquired distinctiveness, and run clearance searches against the Ukrainian register. More on how we work with IP firms.

See also: THE CRACKERS: a cracker shape registered as a trademark · Winter fresh: a shared word is not similarity