We monitor WIPO notifications of provisional refusals issued by Ukraine against international registrations every day. Between mid-August and early November 2026 there were 140 of them. Here is what most often stops a designation of Ukraine — and what it means if you are about to designate Ukraine or have just received a refusal.
In short
Most common ground: similarity to an earlier mark — 71% of refusals; in 62% it is the only ground.
Most affected classes: 9 (software, electronics), 5 (pharmaceuticals), 42 (IT services) and 3 (cosmetics).
Total refusals: 105 of 140 (75%); the rest cover only some goods and services.
Grounds for refusal
| Ground | Law | Refusals | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Similarity to an earlier mark | Art. 6(3) | 99 | 71% |
| Descriptive | Art. 6(2) | 22 | 16% |
| Lack of distinctive character | Art. 6(2) | 15 | 11% |
| Misleading as to the producer | Art. 6(2) | 12 | 9% |
| Public order, morality, banned symbols | Art. 5(1) | 10 | 7% |
| Misleading as to the goods | Art. 6(2) | 4 | 3% |
| Other: name of a well-known person, official state name | Art. 6(1), 6(4) | 4 | 3% |
Articles refer to the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services. One refusal may rely on several grounds (25 did), so the total exceeds 140.
Similarity. The examiners cite Ukrainian national registrations and international registrations designating Ukraine in roughly equal numbers. “Misleading as to the producer” almost always comes with similarity (9 of 12): the office takes the view that buyers would mistake the goods for those of the earlier owner.
Descriptiveness and distinctiveness. Marks that name the composition, purpose or properties of the goods are refused — for example, a word buyers would read as the name of a cosmetic ingredient. In 9 refusals the two grounds appear together.
Public order. The ten refusals on this ground concerned a stylised letter “Z”, a five-pointed red star, holders linked to the aggressor state, a cannabis strain name and signs the examiner found contrary to morality. Article 5(1) expressly refers to the Ukrainian laws condemning the communist regime and Russian imperial policy.
Classes most often refused
| Class | Covers | Refusals | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | software, electronics | 41 | 29% |
| 5 | pharmaceuticals | 31 | 22% |
| 42 | IT services, research | 23 | 16% |
| 3 | cosmetics, cleaning products | 23 | 16% |
| 35 | advertising, retail | 20 | 14% |
| 41 | education, entertainment | 16 | 11% |
One refusal may cover several classes. For total refusals all classes designated for Ukraine are counted; for partial refusals, only the classes affected.
Whose marks
Holders from China (18), Germany (18), the United States (10), the Netherlands (9), Italy (8) received the most refusals. A further 5 refusals followed oppositions by third parties rather than ex officio examination: owners of earlier Ukrainian marks also watch Madrid designations.
What this means for designations of Ukraine
1. Similarity refusals can often be overcome. The law allows registration with the consent of the owner of the earlier mark, provided consumers cannot be misled (Article 6(6)). Other routes are arguments on dissimilarity of the marks or goods, and limiting the specification.
2. A search before designating costs less than a response. Earlier conflicting marks are visible in the Ukrainian register and in Madrid Monitor before you designate Ukraine. Our free Ukrainian trademark search is a quick first check.
3. Descriptiveness is harder. It takes convincing arguments that the sign is not descriptive, or evidence that it acquired distinctiveness through use before the filing date (Article 6(2)).
4. Public order leaves the least room for argument. Where the refusal concerns banned symbols or the aggressor state, a changed sign is usually the realistic way forward.
5. The term is short. Three months from the date the Ukrainian office sent the notification. A holder based outside Ukraine must act through a patent attorney registered in Ukraine (Article 4(2)).
Method
Sources: notifications of provisional refusal by Ukraine in WIPO Madrid Monitor and the WIPO Gazette (Nos. 2026/33 to 2026/45), and the refusal documents themselves. Period: notifications dated 12 August to 3 November 2026. Excluded: three cases with Russian holders and representatives, two cases where a further decision had already followed the refusal, and duplicate entries of the same refusal. Grounds are taken from the text of each refusal; the country is the holder's address. Data as of 11 November 2026. Next review: winter.
Received a Ukrainian refusal?
Send us the refusal: we will read it, tell you honestly whether and how it can be overcome, and quote a fixed fee before any work starts — from €190 for a straightforward Madrid refusal. For IP firms we act as your Ukrainian associate, work only through you and never contact your client. See how we respond to provisional refusals, a Madrid refusal we overcame and how we work with IP firms.
Frequently asked questions
What is a provisional refusal from Ukraine under the Madrid System?
A notification sent by the Ukrainian office (UANIPIO) through WIPO stating that a mark covered by an international registration cannot be protected in Ukraine, in full or for some goods and services. It is not final: the holder can respond and overcome it.
How long is the term for responding to a Ukrainian provisional refusal?
Three months from the date the Ukrainian office sent the notification of provisional refusal. A holder based outside Ukraine must respond through a patent attorney registered in Ukraine (Article 4(2) of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services).
What is the most common ground for refusal in Ukraine?
Likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark (Article 6(3) of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services): it appears in 71% of the refusals we reviewed for autumn 2026. Such refusals can be overcome with the earlier owner's consent (Article 6(6)), arguments on dissimilarity of the marks or goods, or a narrower specification.
The provisions cited are article 4(2), article 5(1) and article 6(1)–(4) and (6) of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services, as in force on 26 February 2026 (checked on 11 November 2026).
Author: Volodymyr Tarasiuk, Ukrainian patent and trademark attorney, Reg. No. 529