SPRAGA

Same word, same theme — drinks, and beer appears in both specifications. The owner of the SPRAGA trademark for drinks tried to cancel the registration of the same word for a chain of beer and cider shops. The Appeals Chamber found the signs similar but rejected the appeal: on the facts of this case, a drinks producer and a shop selling other producers' goods are not related.

Decision of the Appeals Chamber of UANIPIO of 29 May 2026, approved by Order No. 356/2026 of 3 November 2026. The appeal of SPRAGA GLOBAL LTD was rejected in full, and the UANIPIO decision of 27 May 2025 to register «SPRAGA, комб.» under application No. m202308202 remains in force.

The parties and the marks

• Application: No. m202308202 of 19 May 2023, a figurative sign: the word SPRAGA between two lines with ears of grain and a hop leaf above; class 35 services. The applicant is an individual who, according to the case file, has operated under this sign since 2020 as a chain of shops selling draught beer, cider and snacks;
• Cited mark: the word mark SPRAGA, Ukrainian certificate No. 344043 of 21 February 2024 (filed 23 June 2022), class 32: non-alcoholic drinks, kvass, lemonades, and also beer, among others. Owner: SPRAGA GLOBAL LTD (Cyprus); as the Board established, the mark is used for kombucha.

How the case reached the Appeals Chamber

During examination, on 25 June 2024, the then owner of the SPRAGA mark filed reasoned observations against the application, as allowed by article 10(8) of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services” (the Law). On 30 October 2024 the examiner notified a possible refusal: the sign may mislead as to the service provider and, for class 35 services connected with putting class 32 goods on the market, is similar to the word mark SPRAGA.

On 2 May 2025 the applicant replied with arguments and limited and clarified the specification: retail sale, demonstration and presentation now cover only specific goods — processed nuts, beer, cider, rusks, dried meat, dried seafood and fish, and crisps. The examiner accepted the arguments, and on 27 May 2025 UANIPIO decided to register the mark.

The owner of the cited mark appealed to the Appeals Chamber under article 15(1), paragraph two, of the Law. During the proceedings the mark was assigned to SPRAGA GLOBAL LTD, and the Board substituted the assignee as appellant.

The parties' arguments

• Appellant: the word SPRAGA is identical and dominant, and the graphics do not change that; demonstrating and selling beer and cider is connected with putting class 32 goods on the market; limiting the specification does not remove the risk of confusion, and the applicant's active use only increases it;
• Applicant: the signs differ visually and in meaning; the appellant produces kombucha and sells it mainly through supermarkets, while the applicant sells other producers' beer, cider and snacks in its own shops; kombucha is not in the specification; the sign was created to order under a contract of 7 November 2019, handed over on 23 January 2020 and used since 2020, before the appellant filed its application.

Similarity: yes, but not complete

The Board found the common dominant element SPRAGA phonetically identical. Visually, in its view, the signs create a different impression because of the ears of grain and the hop leaf. Semantically, SPRAGA is a transliteration of the Ukrainian word «спрага» (thirst), a common word naturally associated with drinks; combined with the graphics it evokes a hop-based drink, so the meaning is «not completely identical». The Board's overall finding: the applied-for sign «as a whole is associated with the cited trademark, despite certain differences in its elements» (our translation).

Relatedness: where the case was decided

As the application was filed in 2023, the Board applied the Rules approved by Order of the State Patent Office of Ukraine No. 116 of 28 July 1995 (the 1995 Rules; no longer in force since 18 September 2024). Under their point 4.3.2.5, when establishing similarity of goods and services, «the fundamental likelihood of the consumer forming the impression that they belong to one person who manufactures the goods or provides the services is determined» (our translation), taking into account the kind of goods and services, their purpose, conditions and channels of sale, and the circle of consumers.

The Board examined the parties' actual business. The applicant uses the sign for a chain of specialised shops selling draught and bottled beer, cider, crisps, rusks, nuts and snacks, supported by invoices for 2019–2023, photos of branded glasses and signboards, social media pages, a delivery platform and Google Maps. The appellant uses its mark for its own kombucha.

At the same time, the Board stressed that use of the mark only for kombucha «does not by itself limit the scope of legal protection» (our translation), so it assessed relatedness against the whole class 32 specification.

Its conclusion: advertising, marketing and administrative services support commercial activity, while drinks are for consumption; sales services «are not by their nature services of producing» the goods; the chain sells goods of various producers, while the appellant sells its own products. The goods and services therefore «are not in such a direct relationship as could make the consumer believe that they belong to one person or to persons connected with each other» (our translation).

Accordingly, despite the phonetic and semantic similarity, the ground for refusal under article 6(3), paragraph two, of the Law did not apply. That provision bars signs so similar that they may be confused with marks «previously registered or filed for registration in Ukraine in the name of another person for the same or related goods and services» (our translation). The Board did not assess the applicant's earlier use as a separate ground: those materials served to establish the nature of its business.

Our view: the facts decide, not the classes

What follows is our assessment.

Compare the STEKLA FAR case: there the Appeals Chamber held class 11 headlights and class 35 services for selling them related, because both parties sold headlight glass through their own websites. In SPRAGA one party produces a drink and the other sells various producers' goods in shops. The test is the same; the outcome is the opposite because of the facts.

One detail deserves attention. The specification of certificate No. 344043 includes «beer», and the application covers «retail services in relation to goods, namely: … beer» (our translation). The decision does not analyse this pair separately: its conclusion is framed generally for class 32 goods and class 35 services. So we would not transfer it mechanically to other cases. The current Rules approved by Order of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine No. 19889 of 6 August 2024 (the Rules; point 20 of chapter 8 of section VI) expressly state that goods or services «cannot be considered unrelated merely because they are listed in different classes» of the Nice Classification (our translation).

In our view, it also helped the applicant that the class 35 specification had been narrowed to specific goods during examination: the Board assessed a clear service — selling beer, cider and snacks — rather than “retail” in general.

Outcome

• the appeal of SPRAGA GLOBAL LTD was rejected in full;
• the UANIPIO decision of 27 May 2025 to register «SPRAGA, комб.» under application No. m202308202 remains in force;
• the Appeals Chamber decision took effect on approval by order, 3 November 2026, and may be challenged in court within two months of receipt (article 15(9) of the Law);
• as of 13 November 2026 the register shows the application at the stage “preparation for state registration and publication”; no certificate has been issued yet.

Takeaways for brand owners in Ukraine

A mark for goods does not automatically bar the same word for a shop. Nor does it automatically allow it: the specification, consumers, sales channels and actual business decide. Search beyond your own class — trademark search in Ukraine.

Word class 35 precisely. «Retail services in relation to goods, namely: …» with the actual goods is easier to defend than general “trade”.

The scope of protection follows the registered specification, not what you actually sell. The Board assessed all class 32 drinks, although the owner produced only kombucha.

The Appeals Chamber is open only to those who filed observations in time. Without reasoned observations during examination, a third party cannot take someone else's registration to the Appeals Chamber — see trademark oppositions in Ukraine.

If your client's mark meets a similar sign in Ukraine

We search the Ukrainian register, assess similarity and relatedness of goods and services, and file observations and appeals before UANIPIO and the Appeals Chamber.

Questions we are asked about this case

Does a Ukrainian trademark for beer block the same name for a beer shop?

Not necessarily. In the SPRAGA case the cited mark covers class 32 drinks, including beer, while the application covers class 35 services, including retail sale of beer, cider and snacks. The Appeals Chamber held them not related: selling goods of various producers in a chain of shops is not producing a drink, so consumers would not think one person provides both. This is a finding on the facts of the case, not a general rule.

Does the Appeals Chamber look at how the owner actually uses its mark?

Yes, as a circumstance describing the parties' business, but it does not narrow the scope of protection. In SPRAGA the Board stated that use of the mark only for kombucha «does not by itself limit the scope of legal protection» (our translation), so it assessed relatedness against the full class 32 specification.

Is it enough that the goods and services are in different Nice classes?

No. Under the Rules approved by Order of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine No. 19889 of 6 August 2024 (point 20 of chapter 8 of section VI), goods or services cannot be considered unrelated merely because they are listed in different Nice classes. In the STEKLA FAR case the Appeals Chamber held class 11 car headlights and class 35 services for selling them to be related.

Who can challenge the registration of someone else's trademark before the Appeals Chamber in Ukraine?

Only a person who earlier filed reasoned observations against that application. Under article 10(8) of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services” anyone may file them within three months of publication of the application, and under article 15(1), paragraph two, of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services” that person may appeal the decision to the Appeals Chamber within two months of receiving a copy of it.

See also: STEKLA FAR: different classes, same risk · Winter fresh: a shared word is not similarity