Does a shared design element amount to imitation?

Not by itself. A colour, shape or geometric motif echoing a well-known brand does not make the marks similar; the signs are compared as wholes and the question is whether real confusion arises.

How did the applicant's own name help?

The disputed V-shaped stripe was read by the Board as a stylised first letter of the word VOSS appearing on the pack. The presence of the applicant's own word gave the element an innocent explanation.

How are three-dimensional marks compared in Ukraine?

On the same three limbs as other marks — phonetic, visual and conceptual — with the overall impression of the packaging taken as a whole rather than element by element.

Does the opponent's reputation change the analysis?

It is taken into account but does not substitute for similarity. Here the marks were held dissimilar on all three limbs despite the opponent's global reputation.

VOSS v Marlboro: A Shared Design Element Is Not Imitation

Q: Are privately commissioned expert opinions evidence in Ukrainian opposition proceedings?

No. The Board disregarded the reports filed by both sides on the ground that opinions obtained privately, outside the statutory procedure, are not evidence in these proceedings. The Board makes the similarity assessment itself.

← Guides

A Ukrainian manufacturer registered a three-dimensional mark in the shape of a cigarette pack, grey and blue, with the word VOSS and a blue V-shaped stripe. Philip Morris saw in it an imitation of the Marlboro roof device. The Appeal Chamber did not.

The case in brief

Parties: a Ukrainian tobacco manufacturer (VOSS) against Philip Morris Brands Sarl (Marlboro);
Issue: whether the VOSS packaging is similar to the well-known Marlboro roof device;
Outcome: the Board found the marks dissimilar phonetically, visually and conceptually; the VOSS registration stands;
Date: 9 July 2026, approved by order No. 225/2026 of 7 August 2026.

What each side argued

Philip Morris argued that the V-shaped element on the VOSS pack is not decoration but an imitation of its roof device, placed exactly where consumers expect to see it.

The Ukrainian manufacturer did not file a formal response in time, but argued at the hearing that there is no similarity at all.

An unexpected turn: both expert reports were disregarded

The Board declined to take into account the privately commissioned expert opinions filed by both sides. The reason: opinions obtained privately, outside the statutory procedure, are not evidence in these proceedings.

For foreign counsel budgeting a Ukrainian opposition, this is worth knowing in advance: money spent on a private expert report may buy an argument, but not evidence.

How the Board compared the marks

Phonetically: VOSS and Marlboro have nothing in common.

Visually: VOSS is a three-dimensional pack bearing a word; the cited Marlboro marks are either standalone geometric devices without any wording, or packs with the Marlboro name.

Conceptually: VOSS is an invented word with no meaning in Ukrainian, whereas Marlboro is associated with a globally known tobacco brand. Different associations.

What the Board said about the V-shaped stripe

The most instructive finding concerns the disputed element itself. In the Board's view the average consumer will read it not as an allusion to a third party's roof device but as a stylised first letter of the word VOSS.

The same element that the opponent read as imitation, the Board read as part of the applicant's own identity — because the sign contains a word that explains it.

Practical points

A shared design element is not fatal. A colour, shape or geometric motif echoing a well-known brand does not by itself make the marks similar. The comparison is of the signs as wholes, and of whether real confusion arises.

Your own name is your best defence. The V-shaped element looked threatening as «part of someone else's design» and read as neutral the moment the Board saw a logical connection with the applicant's own word.

Private expert opinions carry less weight than expected. Neither side's report was admitted. In Ukrainian administrative proceedings the Board makes the similarity assessment itself.

If you are enforcing or defending packaging rights in Ukraine

Three-dimensional and packaging marks are decided on the overall impression, and the evidence rules differ from what foreign counsel may expect. We advise on prospects before proceedings are commenced and represent parties before the Appeal Chamber. More on how we work with IP firms.

Ask about clearance in Ukraine

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 the National Intellectual Property Authority of 9 July 2026, approved by UANIPIO order No. 225/2026 of 7 August 2026, on the opposition against the three-dimensional trademark «VOSS».

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.