The application had already survived examination, the specification had been narrowed and a decision to register had issued. That is where it fell apart: the owners of a similar earlier mark filed an appeal, and the registration decision was set aside.

What happened

A Ukrainian couple applied to register the composite sign «STEKLA FAR» for class 35 services — retail, advertising and promotion of goods (application No. m202306722 of 28 April 2023).

The examiner first issued a provisional refusal. The applicants agreed to narrow the specification, and on 10 February 2026 UANIPIO decided to register the mark.

The owners of the word mark «STEKLAFAR» (certificate No. 314793 of 16 February 2022, registered for class 11 goods — vehicle headlamps and parts for them) appealed against that decision.

First, a point of standing that is easy to miss

The decision mentions it in a single line, but it decided whether the appeal could be heard at all. An appeal to the Appeal Chamber against a decision to register someone else's mark is available not to anyone, but only to a person who had already filed a reasoned third-party observation against the application during examination.

The opponents here had taken that step: on 2 April 2025 they filed reasoned observations against application No. m202306722. The examiner considered them but did not follow them — the applicants had narrowed the specification and the examiner treated the conflict as resolved.

That earlier filing is what opened the way to the Appeal Chamber. From receipt of the decision they had two months to appeal.

Practical point for rights holders monitoring Ukrainian filings: if you see a conflicting application, file observations during examination. Miss that window and, however obvious the similarity, the Appeal Chamber route is closed — only the courts remain.

Argument one: our sign is figurative

The applicants argued that the opponents were comparing isolated elements rather than the overall impression: their sign is composite — wording on a black background plus a stylised graphic element.

The Board disagreed. The verbal elements dominate; they are what attracts attention, and the graphic treatment does not change how the word is perceived.

Phonetically the Board found complete identity: the same sounds, the same number of syllables, the same stress, no distinguishing audible component. Semantically the same — «STEKLA» is a transliteration of the Ukrainian word for glass, «FAR» of the word for headlamps.

Argument two: the classes are different

This is the most instructive part of the decision. The earlier mark covers class 11 goods — headlamps themselves. The application covered class 35 services — retail and advertising. Different things, one would think.

The Board held them to be similar within the meaning of article 6(3). The reasoning: class 35 services of advertising, promotion, display and sale are directed at selling the very goods covered by the earlier registration. They share the same consumer, the same purpose and the same channels, so the public may well assume a common origin.

A further factor: both sides in fact sell glass for vehicle headlamps through their own websites. The Board stressed that the class headings alone do not decide relatedness — what matters is the economic relationship between the goods and the services.

Argument three: we have used the sign since 2019

The applicants assembled a substantial file: the domain steklafar.com.ua registered on 6 April 2019, archived copies of the site in the Wayback Machine, a Google Ads account with 2020 campaigns, Google Analytics data. They also challenged the opponents' evidence: the domain steklafar.ua was registered only on 14 March 2022, and the earliest archived capture of that site dates from 29 March 2025.

It did not help. The Board's answer was short: earlier use does not in itself rebut the established likelihood that consumers will associate the applied-for sign with the owner of the earlier registration.

The sign was also found liable to mislead as to the person providing the goods or services, reinforced by the fact that both sides operate web resources built on the same verbal element.

And a note on citing the Supreme Court

The applicants relied on a 2020 Supreme Court judgment about the weight of figurative elements and the overall impression.

The Board drew a distinction. What binds is the Supreme Court's conclusions on the application of legal provisions. Findings of fact in another case, the assessment of particular evidence and conclusions about the similarity of particular signs are tied to that case and do not transfer.

Worth remembering when advising: Ukrainian similarity case law is almost always sign-specific, and it cannot be applied mechanically to a different pair of marks.

Outcome

• the appeal was upheld in full;
• the decision of 10 February 2026 to register was set aside;
• registration was refused for all class 35 services applied for;
• the appeal fee is refundable;
• arguments about unfair competition were not considered — such circumstances cannot found an appeal of this kind.

The decision takes effect once approved by order of UANIPIO and may be challenged in court within two months.

Practical points

The word outweighs the styling. If the verbal element coincides with an earlier mark, a black background, a bespoke typeface and a device will not save the application.

Different classes are not a safe harbour. A mark for goods can block a mark for services consisting in the sale of those goods. Clearance must cover adjacent classes, not only the client's own.

Registration outranks use. Years of prior use do not defeat an earlier registration in a first-to-file system.

A decision to register is not the end. An appeal can set it aside even after a favourable examination outcome — which is why the two-month window matters.

If you are clearing a sign for Ukraine

We run clearance searches in the Ukrainian register, including adjacent classes and transliterations, file applications for foreign applicants 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