The same applicants, the same day, the same panel — and two refusals. A Ukrainian poultry producer tried to register two lines printed on its chicken packaging. The Appeal Chamber held both to be descriptions of the goods, not trademarks.

Two decisions of the Appeal Chamber of UANIPIO of 26 August 2026:

• «ВЛАСНІ ПТАШНИКИ НА ВОЛИНІ» («Own Poultry Houses in Volyn»), word sign, application No. m202110242 — approved by order No. 319/2026 of 16 October 2026;
• «MAX PROTEIN MIN FAT» (fig.), application No. m202104775 — approved by order No. 312/2026 of 14 October 2026.

In both cases the refusal for class 29 goods stands.

The parties and the signs

• Applicants: two individuals who own a poultry farm and an agricultural company raising chickens in the Volyn region of north-western Ukraine;
• Signs: two lines from the packaging — one in Ukrainian about where the chickens are raised, one in English about protein and fat content;
• Goods: in both appeals the class 29 list was narrowed to chicken products: carcasses, fillets, thighs, drumsticks, wings, mince and similar.

Slogan one: «Own Poultry Houses in Volyn»

The applicants argued that the sign simply tells the truth: the chickens are raised in their own poultry houses in Volyn rather than bought in and repacked, and the products are sold nationwide, including through the ATB and METRO chains. The difficulty is that this very accuracy makes the phrase descriptive.

The Board took the phrase word by word: «poultry houses» are the production facility, «Volyn» is a geographical area, and «own» indicates that the facilities belong to the producer. Together they give an immediately understandable description. Under article 6(2), fourth paragraph, of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services, signs consisting only of descriptive indications, including characteristics, geographical origin and place of production, cannot be protected.

Slogan two: «MAX PROTEIN MIN FAT»

Here the applicants tried another line: the phrase is not a description but a call to health-conscious consumers to eat more protein and less fat. The Board replied that chicken is precisely the kind of product characterised by its protein and fat content, so the average consumer reads «maximum protein, minimum fat» as information about the goods, with no interpretation needed. Combining MAX and MIN with PROTEIN and FAT creates no new meaning.

The sign was filed as a composite mark, but its «device» is a standard typeface in white on a grey rectangle. The Board held that this presentation adds no distinctive character and does not alter the descriptive meaning of the words.

What both cases share: the real brand sits next to the slogan

A descriptive sign can still be registered if it has acquired distinctive character through use. The examination Rules approved by order of the Ministry of Economy of 6 August 2024 No. 19889 list the relevant factors: consumer awareness, and the duration, extent and territory of use and promotion. Crucially, distinctiveness must have been acquired before the filing date.

In both cases the Board looked at how the applicants actually use the phrases. On the packs, the indicator of commercial origin is «Chebaturochka» in one case and «Epikur» in the other; the slogans sit next to these brands as informative lines and are not used on their own to identify the goods. For «MAX PROTEIN MIN FAT» the Board established this from «Epikur» products shown online.

No evidence filed

In the «Own Poultry Houses» appeal, claims of nationwide sales, retail chains and advertising were supported only by a company register extract and packaging photos; the Board stated that no evidence of acquired distinctiveness had been submitted. In the «MAX PROTEIN MIN FAT» appeal the applicants said the sign had been used for over two years. One point the Board did not address separately is worth noting: the application was filed in March 2021 and the appeal in December 2025, so even proven use of two years at that time would post-date filing.

What narrowing the list achieved

In both cases narrowing the list to chicken removed one ground: the signs are no longer misleading within the meaning of article 6(2), fifth paragraph, of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services. Descriptiveness and lack of distinctiveness remained. The closer the list matches the phrase, the clearer it is that the phrase describes those goods.

Practical points

An accurate description makes the weakest trademark. The more precisely a phrase describes the product, its properties, place or method of production, the less registrable it is.

Calling a description a «slogan» or a «call to action» does not help if what it says is a characteristic of the goods.

A composite mark helps only with a genuinely distinctive element. A grey rectangle and a standard font are not a device in the legal sense. File the slogan together with the brand name or logo. Word, composite or figurative: what to file in Ukraine.

Acquired distinctiveness is proved with documents dated before filing: sales volumes, retail contracts, advertising spend, publications, consumer surveys. Packaging photos are not enough.

Check your packaging and website through the examiner's eyes. The Board may look for itself. A similar line of reasoning appears in the SMETANA DO BORSHCHU case, where use did not save a descriptive name.

Questions and answers

If you are filing a slogan in Ukraine

We assess registrability before filing, advise on whether a slogan should go in as a word mark or as part of a composite mark, and assemble acquired-distinctiveness evidence that meets the Ukrainian Rules. More on how we work with IP firms.

See also: Free Ukrainian trademark search · Responding to a provisional refusal in Ukraine