The logic looks sound: the earlier mark contains a striking image, the image is what the consumer remembers, our sign is a bare word — so confusion is unlikely. The Ukrainian Appeal Chamber reached the opposite conclusion, and the reason it gave is worth knowing.
What happened
A Ukrainian pharmaceutical manufacturer filed application No. m201801196 on 19 January 2018 for the word mark «СУПЕРОПТІК» (SUPEROPTIK) covering class 5 goods: pharmaceuticals, multivitamin preparations for eye health, ophthalmic products and dietary supplements.
A Swiss company opposed during examination. On 18 March 2021 UANIPIO refused registration, citing its earlier composite mark «СуперОптік» (certificate No. 206529 of 10 December 2015), registered for similar class 5 goods and consisting of a realistic image of a woman's eye above the same word.
The applicant appealed the refusal to the Appeal Chamber.
How the applicant argued it
The device dominates. The earlier mark is composite; in the applicant's view the photographic eye determines the overall impression, while the applied-for sign is purely verbal, so the overall impressions differ.
It is an extension of our own series. The applicant owns earlier Ukrainian marks built on the same root and argued that the new sign is simply the next member of that family.
Case law supports us. The applicant relied on a 2019 Supreme Court judgment and a 2020 commercial court decision on the weight of figurative elements.
What the Board found
Phonetically — complete identity. The same vowels and consonants, the same number of syllables and sounds, the same stress, with no additional audible component capable of changing perception.
Visually — similarity prevails. The same alphabet, standard typeface, same sequence of letters. The differences — letter case and the presence of the eye device — were held insufficient.
Conceptually — and this is where the case turns. The Board found the meanings identical: «super-» denotes enhanced quality or effect, «optik» evokes optics and vision. Then comes the finding that matters most for practice: the image of an eye does not remove the similarity, it reinforces it, because it ties the sign directly to vision, the organ of sight and ophthalmology.
In other words the figurative element did not pull the marks apart — it pushed them together. The goods were held homogeneous by purpose and by the relevant consumer group.
Why the case-law citations failed
This part of the decision is worth reading by anyone building a defence on quotations from other cases.
The Board drew a distinction. What must be followed are the Supreme Court's conclusions on the application of legal provisions. Findings of fact made in another case, the assessment of particular evidence and conclusions about the similarity of particular signs have no predetermined weight.
The 2019 judgment concerned an entirely different pair of signs; the commercial court decision, although it dealt with similarity, was likewise tied to its own facts.
Outcome and timeline
The appeal was dismissed in full and the refusal stood.
The timeline deserves attention in its own right: the application was filed in January 2018, refused in March 2021, appealed in June 2021, and decided by the Appeal Chamber in July 2026 — more than eight years from filing to final administrative outcome. Part of that delay is explained by the suspension of IP time limits during martial law, repealed in April 2025.
The decision takes effect on approval by order of UANIPIO and may be challenged in court within two months.
Practical points
A device is not a universal shield. It adds distinctiveness where the word is weak or descriptive. Where the word coincides with an earlier mark, the image usually does not save the application.
A device can work against you. If the image supports the same concept as the word, it strengthens the similarity. An eye next to «optik» is exactly that case.
Your own family of marks gives no immunity. Belonging to the applicant's own series does not displace the rights of whoever registered a similar sign earlier.
Other people's judgments are not arguments in themselves. What transfers is the interpretation of legal provisions, not a similarity assessment from a different case.
Time is the expensive resource. Eight years inside the procedure cost far more than clearance before filing.
If you are clearing a sign for Ukraine
A simple search would have shown the earlier registration immediately — the word was already in the register, in the same class. We run clearance searches in the Ukrainian register, advise on word versus composite filings, and handle appeals before the Appeal Chamber. More on how we work with IP firms.
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 UANIPIO of 15 July 2026 on the appeal against the refusal to register the trademark «СУПЕРОПТІК», application No. m201801196. The provisions cited are article 6(3) of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services, as in force on 15 September 2026.
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.
Author: Volodymyr Tarasiuk, Ukrainian patent and trademark attorney, Reg. No. 529
See also: Free Ukrainian trademark search · Madrid designations in Ukraine