The product was already on the shelves of a national retail chain. There was a supply agreement, delivery notes, even a GS1 barcode. None of it saved the application.

What happened

A Ukrainian dairy producer applied to register the word sign «СМЕТАНА ДО БОРЩУ» — literally «sour cream for borshch» — for class 29 goods. In March 2026 UANIPIO refused registration.

The applicant appealed. On 8 July 2026 the Appeal Chamber dismissed the appeal in full and the refusal stood.

The core ground: the sign describes the goods

Ukrainian law does not allow registration of signs consisting solely of indications that describe the goods — their kind, quality, composition, properties or intended purpose.

The Board broke the sign down: the noun «сметана» (sour cream) plus the construction «до борщу» (for borshch). Together they read as an indication of sour cream intended for use with a particular dish. The consumer is told what the product is and what it is for.

The test applied is worth noting for anyone advising on Ukrainian filings: descriptiveness is assessed by the first visual impression of the average consumer. If the meaning is grasped immediately, without further thought or interpretation, the sign is descriptive.

The applicant argued that «for borshch» merely evokes a culinary context and creates an associative image. The Board rejected that: there is nothing here to interpret — the meaning is direct.

Narrowing the specification helped, but only halfway

During the proceedings the applicant limited the goods to «sour cream» alone. That worked for one ground: the objection that the sign would mislead consumers fell away, because sour cream is exactly what the sign denotes.

But descriptiveness and lack of distinctive character are not cured by narrowing. By limiting the list, the applicant removed one ground of refusal and at the same time made the remaining one stronger — the closer the goods to the literal meaning of the sign, the more plainly descriptive it becomes.

Why the evidence of use failed

This is the most useful part of the case. Ukrainian law allows registration of a sign lacking inherent distinctiveness if it has acquired distinctiveness through use. The applicant ran exactly that argument, with a solid file: a GS1 database extract, a product passport from the Listex platform, a supply agreement with a national retail chain, delivery notes.

The Board did not accept the evidence — and not because there was too little of it. The reason was different: the sign actually used differed from the sign applied for. On the packaging the wording appears in a bespoke typeface, in a particular colour combination and with a graphic element. What is in use is a composite sign. What was filed was a plain word mark in standard characters.

In other words, the evidence proved use of a different sign from the one sought to be registered. For foreign counsel this is a recurring trap in Ukrainian acquired-distinctiveness cases: the filing strategy and the packaging must match.

«But others were registered» is not an argument

The applicant cited registered marks of comparable construction belonging to other producers.

The Board did not consider that material at all. The reasoning is procedural: evidence in the proceedings is material relating to the subject matter of the particular appeal. Third-party registrations have no bearing on the applicant's own sign, and each application is examined on its own facts.

This point is worth passing on to clients: pointing at competitors' registrations feels compelling and carries no legal weight.

Practical points

A self-explanatory name is not a protectable name. The better a name explains the product, the lower the chance of registering it.

File what you use. If the packaging carries a distinctive typeface, colour and device, file the composite sign rather than the bare word.

Evidence must support the sign as filed. Agreements and invoices prove nothing if the photographs show a different mark.

Clear the name before launch, not a year after the product is on the shelf. Here the producer invested first and learned only afterwards that the name could not be protected.

What clearance in Ukraine should actually cover

This case illustrates what a register search alone will not show. The name was free — no identical mark, no conflict with third-party rights. Registration still failed, because the obstacle was in the sign itself.

A proper clearance in Ukraine therefore looks at more than availability: whether the sign is descriptive for the goods concerned, whether a weak element narrows the scope of protection, whether what is filed matches what is used on the packaging, and whether the specification raises a deceptiveness objection.

If you are filing in Ukraine

We run clearance searches, advise on whether to file the word, the device or both, and handle appeals before the Appeal Chamber. More on how we work with IP firms.

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