In summary

This article reviews Ukraine’s trademark registration landscape under the new rules for examination and registration of trademarks, which came into force in 2024. It outlines the application process (including formalities, e-filing and new categories of marks), substantive examination on absolute and relative grounds, and the opposition and appeal procedures before the Ukrainian IP Office (UANIPIO) and courts. It also covers the five-year use requirement and non-use revocation, rules on assigning and licensing trademarks, and avenues for enforcement – from civil litigation and border measures to domain name disputes. Recent developments, such as alignment with EU standards and notable court decisions, are highlighted to guide brand owners through the current framework.

Discussion points

• Modernised application procedure under the 2024 Rules

• Substantive examination on absolute and relative grounds and first-to-file principle

• Opposition system and appeal routes via the UANIPIO Appeals Chamber and judiciary

• Use requirements for registered marks and revocation for non-use

• Trademark transactions: recordal of assignments and licences

• Enforcement and dispute resolution: civil remedies and criminal liability for infringement, customs recordal, and domain name dispute resolution

Referenced in this article

• Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations (UANIPIO)

• Law of Ukraine ‘On Protection of Rights to Trademarks for Goods and Services’ (Trademark Law)

• Ministry of Economy Order No. 19889/2024 – New Rules on Drafting, Filing and Examination of Trademark Applications (effective 18 September 2024)

• Appeals Chamber of UANIPIO

• Civil Code of Ukraine

• Criminal Code of Ukraine

• Supreme Court (Grand Chamber) in Darnytsia v Lubnyfarm (2024)

• .UA Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UA-DRP)

Legal framework

National law

The principal legislation governing trademarks in Ukraine is the Law of Ukraine ‘On Protection of Rights to Trademarks for Goods and Services’ (Trademark Law), supplemented by certain provisions of the Civil Code and the Law ‘On Protection Against Unfair Competition’. In 2020, Ukraine amended its Trademark Law to harmonise with the EU Trademark Directive, expanding definitions and grounds for refusal. In 2024, the Ministry of Economy approved new Rules on Drafting, Filing and Consideration of Trademark Applications, which took effect on 18 September 2024. These Rules modernise filing and examination procedures and align practice with international standards, as discussed below. The UANIPIO is the authority that examines applications and maintains the trademark register. Applicants and right holders deal with the UANIPIO for all prosecution matters, while the UANIPIO’s Appeals Chamber hears administrative appeals of examiner decisions.

International treaties

Ukraine is a member of all major IP treaties, which directly influence its trademark regime. These include the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement and Protocol, the Nice Agreement on classification, the Vienna Agreement on figurative marks classification, the Trademark Law Treaty and the Singapore Treaty, among others. Notably, the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement obliges Ukraine to align its IP laws with EU standards. The 2024 Rules expressly incorporate certain EU acquis provisions and Singapore Treaty standards to ensure Ukrainian practice keeps pace with international norms.

Unregistered and well-known marks

As a rule, unregistered trademarks do not enjoy legal protection in Ukraine. Ukraine is a first-to-file jurisdiction, meaning that rights arise from registration rather than use. However, a party who has used an unregistered mark prior to another’s filing may invoke prior use rights – if they prove that their mark was used earlier for those goods/services, they can prevent the later mark from being used or registered. Well-known trademarks are protected irrespective of registration once officially recognised as well-known under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention. Such recognition can be obtained either from the UANIPIO’s Appeals Chamber or by a court decision. Importantly, a recent Grand Chamber decision of the Ukrainian Supreme Court (in Darnytsia v Lubnyfarm, 2024) clarified that a court’s recognition of a mark as well-known is only a means to an end (eg, to resolve a particular infringement or invalidation claim) and has effect inter partes – it is not an independent cause of action nor equivalent to a registration that binds everyone. In other words, courts will no longer entertain a stand-alone lawsuit solely to declare a mark well-known absent a specific infringement dispute, and any well-known status determined in litigation will only apply to that case’s parties. This development encourages brand owners to seek recognition of well-known marks via the IP Office’s procedure or to assert well-known status directly within infringement claims, rather than as separate court claims.

Registered marks

Any legally capable person – whether an individual entrepreneur or a company, Ukrainian or foreign – may apply to register a trademark in Ukraine. Multiple applicants (co-owners) are allowed on a single application. Foreign applicants not residing in Ukraine must act through a local Ukrainian trademark attorney registered to represent foreigners before the IP Office. Ukraine permits multi-class applications, and official fees are calculated based on the number of classes rather than number of goods/services per class. The mark applied for can be virtually any sign or combination of signs capable of distinguishing goods or services – examples include words, logos, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, combinations of colours, three-dimensional shapes, and even sounds. Non-traditional trademarks are explicitly allowed under the latest rules, which provide for positional marks, colour marks per se, motion marks, holographic and multimedia marks, etc., with specific filing requirements for each. For instance, a sound mark application must include a musical notation (score) and an electronic sound file, while a colour mark must include a verbal description and an internationally recognised colour code (eg, a Pantone number) for each colour. A three-dimensional mark’s application should contain images from various angles to show the shape. These changes, implemented in 2024, have broadened the scope of what can be protected as a mark in Ukraine, aligning with practices under EU and WIPO treaties.

Application and examination procedure

Filing requirements

A trademark application must be filed with the UANIPIO and contain at least: (1) the applicant’s name and address; (2) a clear representation of the mark (in colour, if colour is claimed); (3) a list of goods and/or services grouped by Nice Classification; and (4) a power of attorney if filed via a representative. Unlike some jurisdictions, no declaration of use or intent to use is required – an application can be filed without any evidence of prior use. The new 2024 Rules introduced additional formal requirements: individual applicants must now provide an identity document number, and foreign legal entities must provide their registration number in their country of incorporation. These extra details help the IP Office verify the parties, including compliance with sanctions (discussed below).

Applications may be filed on paper or electronically. Electronic filing is now encouraged through a dedicated online portal; in fact, e-filing enjoys a 20 per cent reduction in the filing fee as an incentive. The 2024 Rules provided a new application form to accommodate the updated requirements. Notably, the IP Office will not process applications filed by parties associated with the ‘aggressor state’ (Russia) or under international sanctions. A recent law also allows applications to be withdrawn or registrations invalidated if the owner is later found to be connected to the aggressor state, as such IP rights are deemed contrary to public order and can even be confiscated for public needs. These wartime measures underscore the unusual contemporary constraints in Ukraine’s IP system.

Formal examination

Once filed, an application undergoes formal examination to ensure the paperwork is in order and the required information is provided. The examiner checks that the application meets all formal requirements set by law and that the goods/services are properly classified according to the Nice Classification. If there are any formal defects – for example, missing information, classification errors, or description issues – the examiner issues an office action detailing the deficiencies. The applicant has two months to respond to a formal examination notice, with the possibility to extend this term by an additional three or six months if needed (upon request and payment of a fee). If the applicant does not respond in time or fails to remedy the issues, the application can be deemed abandoned. Once all formalities are satisfied and the official filing fee has been paid, the IP Office publishes the application details in the official bulletin (this publication triggers the opposition period, described later).

Substantive examination

During substantive examination, the claimed mark is evaluated for compliance with the conditions of protection under the Trademark Law – this includes scrutiny on both absolute grounds (inherent registrability) and relative grounds (conflicts with prior rights). In Ukraine, unlike some jurisdictions, the IP Office conducts an examination for prior conflicting rights ex officio (it is not left solely to oppositions). If the examiner finds any reason that the mark should not be registered – whether because it lacks distinctiveness, falls under a statutory exclusion, or conflicts with an earlier mark or other right – the Office will issue a provisional refusal (also called a preliminary refusal) detailing the grounds. The applicant is given an opportunity to respond with arguments or evidence to overcome the refusal. The standard term to respond to a provisional refusal is two months from receipt of the refusal (this is extended to three months if the application is an International Registration under the Madrid System). This response period may be extended by up to six months upon request (with a fee) or even reinstated if missed for valid reasons. In the response, the applicant can submit arguments, evidence of acquired distinctiveness through use, letters of consent from owners of earlier marks, or other information to address the examiner’s objections. For example, if the mark was refused for lack of distinctiveness or being descriptive, showing that it has been extensively used in Ukraine can help establish that it has acquired secondary meaning. The examiner will consider all arguments and evidence in the response before making a final decision.

If no grounds for refusal are found, or the applicant successfully overcomes the objections, the UANIPIO will issue a decision of allowance (decision on registration). The entire examination process (from filing to decision) typically takes around 18 months for a smooth application without significant obstacles. This time frame can be longer if office actions or oppositions occur.

Grounds for refusal

Ukrainian law sets out numerous absolute and relative grounds on which a trademark must be refused registration. Key absolute grounds include: lack of distinctiveness; generic or commonly used terms for the goods/services; descriptive terms indicating kind, quality, value, etc.; marks that have become customary in current language or bonafide business practice; marks that are deceptive or misleading (eg, about the nature, quality or geographic origin of the goods); marks that are contrary to public order or principles of morality (eg, profanity or extremist symbols); and marks consisting exclusively of shapes (or other characteristics) dictated by the nature of the product, necessary for a technical result, or that give substantial value to the product. The new 2024 Rules provide a non-exhaustive list of what may be considered contrary to public order or morality – presumably to guide examiners in refusing vulgar or offensive marks. Certain specific exclusions also fall under absolute grounds: for example, the names of plant varieties and animal breeds, if protected, cannot be registered as trademarks for relevant goods; likewise, geographical indications (including appellations of origin for wines and spirits) that are protected in Ukraine or under international treaties are barred from registration as trademarks if the use of the mark would exploit the GI’s reputation or mislead as to product origin. Marks reproducing state emblems, flags or other official symbols are generally unregistrable without consent, pursuant to article 6ter of the Paris Convention. Ukraine also prohibits registration of trademarks that reproduce Olympic symbols or names (per the Nairobi Treaty) without authorisation. Under copyright-related provisions, a mark will be refused if it reproduces the titles of famous works, characters, or quotations, or the images of famous individuals, without permission from the relevant rights holders. This effectively protects earlier copyrights and personal rights from being hijacked as trademarks.

The relative grounds for refusal primarily concern conflicts with earlier rights. A trademark will be refused if it is identical or confusingly similar to an earlier mark in Ukraine (including international registrations effective in Ukraine) for identical or similar goods or services. Notably, the Trademark Law (as amended) also provides that a mark can be refused if it is similar to an earlier mark to the extent that it may cause association with that mark, even if not outright confusion. This is an EU-harmonised concept extending protection to situations where consumers might assume a connection between the marks. Earlier well-known trademarks in Ukraine (even unregistered ones that have been recognised as well-known) also count as earlier rights – a later mark confusingly similar to a well-known mark can be refused, and even similarity that causes association (dilution-type harm) is covered. Other prior rights that can block a trademark include earlier trade names that are known in Ukraine (if the trade name has been used before the filing date of the trademark and the goods/services are identical or similar), as well as existing certification marks (conformity marks), registered industrial designs, and geographical indications – the examiner will refuse a trademark that conflicts with these rights if appropriate. In addition, Ukraine has adopted the rule of article 6septies of the Paris Convention: if an agent or representative of a trademark owner files an application for that trademark in their own name without the owner’s consent, the application will be refused (or the registration invalidated) unless the agent justifies the filing. This prevents bad-faith filings by distributors or agents. Finally, if an application was filed in bad faith to misappropriate another’s mark (even if that other mark isn’t registered in Ukraine), it can be opposed or invalidated on the basis that it was filed in violation of third-party rights – Ukrainian courts have addressed such situations under general principles of law (bad faith is not explicitly listed in the statute but can be argued).

If the decision is to refuse registration (in whole or in part), the applicant will be notified in writing. The applicant then has the right to appeal an adverse decision, as discussed below. If the decision is to grant protection, the application moves to the registration stage.

Opposition procedure

Ukraine operates a pre-registration opposition system. Once an application is published (after formal examination), any interested party has a thnree-month period from the publication date to file an opposition with the UANIPIO. The opponent must submit a reasoned opposition, citing the grounds on which the mark should be refused under the law, and pay an official opposition fee. Uniquely, any person (individual or entity) may oppose – there is no requirement to be an earlier right holder, as long as the opposition argues non-compliance with the legal requirements for protection. In practice, oppositions can be based on both absolute or relative grounds, similar to the EU system. For example, a competitor might oppose a mark as descriptive or confusingly similar to their own mark, or a public interest group might oppose a mark as being contrary to public order.

When an opposition is filed, the IP Office sends a copy of the opposition to the applicant of the opposed application. The applicant then has an opportunity to respond in writing, within two months from receiving the opposition (this can be extended for another two months upon request). For international registrations designating Ukraine, a slightly longer three-month term is given to reply to an opposition, since the notification goes through WIPO. There is no formal ‘cooling-off’ period for settlement in the Ukrainian opposition process, but the parties can negotiate concurrently if they wish. In the response, the applicant can either rebut the opposition’s arguments, make voluntary amendments (such as deleting some goods to avoid conflict), or withdraw the application if they concede to the opposition.

The opposition is considered as part of the substantive examination of the application. The examiner will evaluate the opposition arguments alongside the usual examination. The outcome can be that the mark is refused entirely, refused for certain goods/services, or allowed to proceed despite the opposition. The IP Office issues a reasoned decision on the opposition, which is communicated to both the opponent and the applicant. If the Office decides to grant protection (fully or partially) to the opposed mark, the opponent has a further remedy: the opponent may appeal that favourable decision to the UANIPIO Appeals Chamber within two months from receiving the decision. To elaborate, if an opposition is unsuccessful or only partly successful (eg, the mark proceeds for some goods), the opponent can file an appeal (with payment of an appeal fee) to challenge the examiner’s decision. The applicant then gets an opportunity to file counter-arguments to the appeal before the Appeals Chamber makes its determination.

Appeals of Office decisions

Both the applicant and the opponent (if any) have rights to appeal UANIPIO’s decisions. An applicant whose application was finally refused (in full or in part) can appeal to the UANIPIO Appeals Chamber or directly to a court. In practice, most applicants first appeal administratively to the Appeals Chamber, as it is a quicker and less expensive route than court litigation. The deadline for an applicant to appeal is two months from the date of receipt of the refusal decision. The Appeals Chamber serves as a quasi-judicial body within the IP Office that reviews decisions for legal and procedural correctness. It will consider the case afresh within the scope of the appeal arguments and any new evidence. The opponent, as noted, can also appeal a decision that went against them (i.e. if the mark was allowed) within two months. Once an appeal is lodged by either side, the IP Office will suspend the application’s further processing until the Appeals Chamber issues its decision. The Appeals Chamber is generally required to consider the appeal within a relatively short period (the rules suggest a timeframe of about two months from the appeal filing, which can be extended by another two months at the request of a party). The Appeals Chamber’s decision will either uphold the examiner’s decision or overturn it (for example, directing that the mark be granted for all or some goods, or that it be refused). This decision is communicated to both parties and is binding on the IP Office.

After exhausting administrative appeals, or in lieu of them, a party still aggrieved can turn to the courts. The Appeals Chamber’s decision can be appealed to a court (typically the Intellectual Property Court or relevant administrative court) within two months of receipt. Similarly, if an applicant skips the Appeals Chamber, they can file a court appeal against the IP Office’s initial decision in the same two-month window. Court proceedings can take longer and follow civil procedure. In the meantime, the trademark application’s status remains suspended until a final judgment is obtained or the appeal is withdrawn.

If no oppositions are filed within the three-month period and the examination finds no bars, the application proceeds straightforwardly to acceptance.

Registration, duration and renewal

Once the UANIPIO examiner issues a decision to grant registration of the trademark, the applicant is notified in writing. At this stage, to complete the registration, the applicant must pay the prescribed registration fee and publication fee. The law provides a window of three months from the date of the notice of allowance for the applicant to pay these fees. If necessary, the applicant may request an extension of the time to pay – up to an additional six months – by filing a request and paying an extension fee, provided this is done before the initial three-month term expires. If the applicant fails to pay the fees within the allotted time (including any extension), the application will lapse and no certificate will issue.

Upon timely payment, the UANIPIO will enter the trademark into the State Register and publish the registration details in the Official Bulletin and online registry. The registration certificate (in electronic or paper form) is then issued to the owner, typically within about one month after the entry into the register. Notably, in Ukraine the rights conferred by a trademark registration date back to the filing date of the application (priority date). This means that once registered, the owner can enforce rights against infringing use that occurred after the filing date, even though the certificate was granted later.

A Ukrainian trademark registration has a term of 10 years from the application filing date. It can be renewed indefinitely for additional 10-year periods. To renew, the owner must file a renewal request and pay the renewal fee before the current term expires. There is a six-month grace period after expiration during which a late renewal can still be done (with payment of a surcharge). If the renewal fee is not paid by the end of the grace period, the registration will be deemed lapsed as of its expiration date.

Once registered, a trademark owner may also surrender the trademark (voluntarily cancel it) in whole or in part, if desired. This is done by submitting a request to the IP Office to withdraw the trademark from the register for some or all goods. The surrender takes effect once the Office publishes a notice of termination in the bulletin.

Use requirements and non-use revocation

Ukraine does not require that a trademark be in use at the time of filing or registration – there is no use requirement to obtain registration or to renew a mark. However, post-registration use is mandatory to maintain the mark’s protection in the long run. If a mark is not used for an extended period, it becomes vulnerable to cancellation for non-use. Specifically, under the Trademark Law, any interested person may seek revocation of a trademark if it has not been used in Ukraine for five consecutive years following the registration. This five-year clock runs from the registration date, and if at any time after that a continuous five-year period of non-use occurs, the mark can be challenged.

Unlike some jurisdictions where non-use cancellation is handled by the IP Office, in Ukraine it is handled through the courts. The party seeking cancellation (plaintiff) must file a lawsuit in an economic court against the trademark owner (and the UANIPIO as a third party) requesting early termination of the trademark rights due to non-use. It is common for the claimant to conduct an independent investigation or market research before filing, to gather evidence indicating that the mark has not been used on the relevant goods/services in Ukraine. Once in court, the burden of proof shifts substantially to the trademark owner to prove that the mark was used within the relevant period. Under Ukrainian law, use by the owner or use with the owner’s consent (e.g. by a licensee or distributor) counts as use of the mark. Use in any form that does not alter the distinctive character of the mark is acceptable – for example, use of a logo in a slightly modified form or in combination with other elements, as long as the core trademark is recognisable, will still qualify as use of the registered mark.

In a non-use cancellation proceeding, the owner can defend by providing evidence of use in commerce during the five-year period before the lawsuit. Such evidence can include invoices for sales of the goods under the mark, examples of packaging or labels showing the mark, advertising and promotional materials, catalogs, website screenshots showing the mark used in connection with the goods/services, participation in trade shows, etc. Even relatively low-volume or token use might be accepted if it is genuine and in commerce. The owner may also try to show ‘valid reasons’ for non-use if actual use did not occur. The law recognises that certain circumstances beyond the owner’s control can excuse non-use. For example, governmental import restrictions or other regulatory barriers that prevented the sale of the goods, or ongoing war and sanctions, could be argued as obstacles beyond the owner’s will. Another example given in the law is if using the mark for those goods would inevitably mislead consumers due to another party’s activities (though this scenario is rarer). Notably, the ongoing war in Ukraine (martial law since 2022) could be such a force majeure reason – indeed, the government has suspended certain legal time limits and possibly courts may take into account war-related disruptions as valid reasons for a company’s failure to use a mark. However, each case is fact-specific, and owners should be prepared with concrete evidence or explanations.

If the court is convinced that there was no use and no adequate justification, it will issue a judgment to revoke the trademark registration (in whole or, if appropriate, just for the goods or services not used). The cancellation, once final, is typically effective from the date of the court’s decision. The court will notify the UANIPIO to remove the mark from the register accordingly. The cancelled mark becomes available for new applications by anyone. If a trademark is revoked for non-use, the owner can appeal the court’s decision through the appellate courts up to the Supreme Court.

It should be emphasised that partial cancellation is possible – if a mark is used on some goods in the registration but not others, the court can strike out the unused goods while leaving the mark protected for the goods where use was proven. This allows a more nuanced outcome reflecting actual use.

Aside from non-use, Ukrainian law provides several other post-registration cancellation mechanisms. A trademark can be invalidated if it was registered in breach of legal requirements – for example, if it should not have been registered due to an existing earlier right or an absolute ground for refusal. Such invalidation also requires court action, brought by an interested party, and generally must be initiated within a three-year limitation period.

Assignment and licensing

Assignment

Trademark rights in Ukraine are transferrable. The owner of a trademark (whether an application or a registration) may assign it to another person by agreement. For the assignment to have legal effect against third parties, it must be registered with the UANIPIO (recorded in the trademark register). In fact, under Ukrainian law the effective date of a trademark assignment is deemed to be the date the IP Office records it. Thus, prompt recordation is important. Either party to the assignment (assignor or assignee) may apply for recordation, but typically the burden is on the new owner (assignee) to ensure their title is recorded. If the assignee is a foreign entity with no local presence, a local trademark attorney must handle the recordal process on their behalf.

The assignment agreement does not need to be notarised or legalised for Ukrainian purposes, except that a notarised excerpt is required if not submitting the full agreement. The IP Office will examine the assignment documents for formal compliance and, importantly, for any substantive issue that might bar the assignment. The law provides that an assignment cannot be recorded if it is likely to mislead consumers as to the qualities of the goods or as to who produces them. This is an anti-trafficking provision to prevent assignments that would deceive the public – for instance, if a trademark famous for a particular company or geographic origin were assigned to an unrelated party, the Office might reject it on public interest grounds, though this provision is seldom applied in practice. In most cases, assignments are straightforward. Once registered, the new owner is listed on the register and the change is published.

It is worth noting that if any party to the assignment (assignor or assignee) is subject to sanctions or is associated with the aggressor state (Russia), the assignment may be denied or deemed void. A draft law pending approval explicitly would render null any IP transfer involving persons related to the aggressor state. Even ahead of that law, the UANIPIO has been cautious in processing such requests as part of the broader sanctions regime.

Licensing

The owner of a Ukrainian trademark may licence others to use the mark. Licence agreements can be exclusive or non-exclusive, and can cover all or part of the goods/services and the whole country or a territory. Unlike assignments, trademark licences in Ukraine are not mandatory to register – the law does not require recordation of a licence agreement for it to be valid between the parties. The parties, however, have the option to register the licence with the UANIPIO, and doing so can be beneficial in some cases (for example, to have it on record for proof of use by a licensee, or to allow a licensee to be recorded as an eligible user of a ‘.ua’ domain name – see domain section below). If the licence is recorded, it puts third parties on notice of the licensee’s rights.

Ukrainian law does impose some content requirements on trademark licences. Notably, a licence agreement must contain a quality control clause – it should stipulate that the quality of goods or services provided by the licensee under the mark will not be lower than that of the trademark owner, and that the owner will monitor compliance with this standard. This is in line with EU practice, aiming to prevent the public from being misled by substandard products under a licensed mark. If a licence agreement lacks such a clause, it could be deemed non-compliant with the law (and potentially invalid or not enforceable). In practice, a brief statement in the contract about quality standards suffices.

Only a registered trademark can be licensed – one cannot license an application or an unregistered sign in Ukraine. The licence can be for a term (definite or indefinite) and may be royalty-bearing or royalty-free. While recordal is optional, if parties choose to record the licence, they submit an application to record, a copy of the licence (or an excerpt) and pay a fee. There is no statutory government review of licence terms except for confirming the presence of the quality clause.

Both assignments and licences can involve partial rights – for example, one can assign a mark for only certain classes (effected by splitting the registration) or license for certain products or regions. Any change in ownership by operation of law (such as merger or reorganisation of a company) should also be recorded to keep the register accurate.

Enforcement and litigation

Civil enforcement

A trademark registration grants its owner the exclusiveright to use the mark for the protected goods/services and to prevent others from using identical or confusingly similar marks in the course of trade. If a third party uses a mark in Ukraine that is identical or similar to the registered mark on identical or related goods without the owner’s consent, that typically constitutes infringement (unless a statutory defence applies). Trademark infringement cases in Ukraine are usually pursued in the civil courts. Depending on the parties’ status, the case can be heard either by an economic (commercial) court (if both plaintiff and defendant are businesses) or a general civil court (if an individual is involved as either plaintiff or defendant). In any event, the substantive trademark law is the same. The trademark owner (or exclusive licensee, with the owner’s consent) must file a claim; there is no administrative agency that will enforce trademarks on the owner’s behalf in Ukraine.

Remedies available in civil trademark infringement proceedings include:

• Injunctive relief – the owner can seek a court order to cease the infringing acts. Preliminary injunctions are available in principle (to stop infringement during the lawsuit), and final injunctions in the judgment will prohibit continued use of the mark by the defendant.

• Damages – compensation for the economic loss suffered by the trademark owner due to the infringement. The owner must prove the amount of actual damages (eg, lost profits, decline in sales, or unjust enrichment of the infringer).

• Statutory compensation – in lieu of proving damages, the law allows the plaintiff to claim an award of compensation in an amount determined by the court, taking into account the nature of the violation, culpability of the infringer, and other factors. The law prescribes that this compensation should not be less than a hypothetical royalty the infringer would have paid for a licence to use the mark. If the infringement was unintentional (no fault/negligence), the compensation awarded will typically equal that hypothetical royalty amount. This system is somewhat akin to statutory damages or reasonable royalty concepts in other jurisdictions.

• Moral damages – in certain cases, trademark owners also claim moral (non-pecuniary) damages, for example, harm to reputation or goodwill, though these are harder to quantify and less commonly awarded.

• Seizure and destruction of infringing goods – the plaintiff can request that counterfeit or infringing products, as well as materials and equipment predominantly used to manufacture them, be seized and ultimately destroyed or altered to remove the unlawfully applied mark. This prevents the goods from entering commerce.

• Publication of the judgment – though not explicitly in the trademark law, courts can order, at the plaintiff’s request, that the defendant publish the court’s decision or a corrective statement to mitigate consumer confusion.

The statute of limitations for a trademark infringement lawsuit is three years from the date the trademark owner became aware (or should have become aware) of the infringement. In practice, this is calculated from each infringing act or from the ongoing infringement period. Courts may, at their discretion, renew a lapsed limitation period if the plaintiff shows a valid reason for not suing sooner (for example, force majeure or the defendant concealing the infringement).

Most trademark cases proceed under civil law. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Evidence often includes trademark registration certificates, evidence of the defendant’s use (such as product samples, photos, invoices), and sometimes expert conclusions on similarity or consumer confusion. Notably, well-known trademark status can play a role in enforcement: if a mark is well-known, the owner can prevent use on dissimilar goods if it would indicate a connection to the owner and the owner’s interests are likely to be damaged. Ukrainian courts will enforce well-known marks under article 6bis and national law. After the Supreme Court’s 2024 Citramon decision (mentioned earlier), a plaintiff asserting a well-known mark in court should either have prior recognition from the IP Office or be prepared to prove well-known status within the infringement case itself, but cannot sue just to get the mark declared well-known in abstract.

Criminal and administrative enforcement

Trademark infringement in Ukraine can rise to the level of a crime if it causes significant harm. The Criminal Code of Ukraine provides that wilful unlawful use of a mark, or sale of goods with a counterfeit mark, is a criminal offence if it caused ‘significant damage’ to the rights holder. Significant damage is defined by reference to a monetary threshold – currently, damage is considered significant if it equals 20 times the non-taxable minimum income (a notional value set by law). This threshold is relatively low in absolute terms (the non-taxable minimum is a token amount, so 20 times that might be only a few hundred US dollars), meaning many commercial-scale infringements qualify. However, trademark crimes in Ukraine are categorised as private prosecution cases. This means law enforcement will typically only initiate criminal proceedings if the trademark owner files a formal complaint and provides sufficient initial evidence of the offense. The police cannot pursue trademark counterfeiters ex officio without a complaint from the victim trademark owner. In practice, brand owners in industries prone to counterfeiting (such as pharmaceuticals, apparel, or electronics) do engage the police and customs in raids and seizures, but it requires the owner’s active involvement and cooperation.

There is also an administrative offence in the Code of Administrative Offenses for trademark infringement (generally covering smaller scale infringements or first-time offenses). This can lead to fines and confiscation of goods via an administrative court process. Often, if goods are seized by customs or police and the quantities are not huge, a case might be handled as an administrative violation rather than a full criminal trial.

Customs surveillance

Ukraine provides robust measures at the border to combat trade in counterfeit goods. Customs authorities maintain a special Customs Register of Intellectual Property Rights, in which trademark owners (as well as other IP right holders) can record their rights for customs monitoring. By filing a customs recordal for a trademark, the owner alerts Customs to watch for any shipments of goods bearing that mark (or confusingly similar marks) that appear to be unauthorised. Customs officers use a risk management system and visual inspections to identify suspect shipments among imports or exports. If goods are suspected of infringing a recorded trademark – typically, this means they appear counterfeit – Customs will suspend clearance of the goods for up to 10 business days. The shipment is held, and the customs officials notify the trademark owner or its agent (using the contact details provided in the Customs Register).

Upon notification, the trademark owner must promptly respond. Within the initial 10-day suspension, the owner has the right to inspect the goods and may choose to negotiate with the importer/exporter or to take legal action. The owner can request Customs to extend the hold for an additional 10 business days (for a total of 20 business days) if more time is needed, by submitting a request explaining the need (often to prepare a lawsuit or await a court injunction). In parallel, the owner can file a civil lawsuit for trademark infringement and seek a court order (preliminary injunction) to continue detaining the goods. If the owner provides Customs with a court order (such as an injunction or seizure order), Customs will hold the goods beyond the 20-day period as directed by the court. If no action is taken by the owner (or no injunction obtained) within the suspension period, Customs will release the goods after the hold expires.

If a court ultimately finds the goods to be infringing, it can order forfeiture and destruction of the counterfeit goods. Ukrainian Customs can execute such court decisions, including seizing goods and destroying them under official supervision. Interestingly, Ukrainian law also provides a mechanism for simplified destruction at the border: if the detained goods are confirmed as counterfeit and the importer (or owner of the goods) consents in writing to their destruction, Customs can arrange to destroy the goods without a court proceeding, after 10 days from notifying the parties. If the importer does not explicitly object or respond within that 10-day window, it is deemed a tacit consent to destruction. The trademark owner must bear the costs of storage and destruction, unless an arrangement is made where the importer agrees to cover them. In practice, many small shipments are disposed of this way to avoid lengthy litigation. The owner may also settle with the importer (for example, if goods are grey market rather than fake), in which case they might allow release or relabeling of goods.

It is important to note that genuine goods (‘parallel imports’) are not subject to border seizure in Ukraine. Ukraine follows the international exhaustion regime for trademarks, meaning if goods were legitimately introduced into commerce anywhere by the trademark owner or with its consent, the trademark owner generally cannot object to their importation into Ukraine. Customs will not seize authentic trademarked goods just because they are imported by an unauthorised reseller. The customs recordal system is targeted at counterfeit (trademark-infringing) goods and piracy, not parallel trade. Thus, trademark owners need to be aware that stopping grey market imports requires different legal strategies (such as proving the goods are materially different and cause consumer confusion, or relying on other laws).

As part of aligning with the EU, Ukraine continues to refine its customs IP enforcement. The procedures described are governed by the Customs Code of Ukraine and regulations on IP border measures. With the ongoing hostilities, border controls have also been vigilant about counterfeit military goods and humanitarian-related products.

Domain name disputes

Distinctive in Ukraine is the nexus between trademarks and the country’s top-level domain ‘.ua’. In order to register a .UA domain name (a second-level domain like <yourbrand.ua>), the registrant must own a Ukrainian trademark (word mark or combined mark) that is identical to the requested domain name. In fact, the domain registry will only allow registration of <example.ua> if the registrant provides a trademark certificate for ‘EXAMPLE’ in Ukraine. (Licensees of a trademark can also register the corresponding ‘.ua’ domain, provided their licence is registered with the UANIPIO to prove their authorisation.) This policy, unique to .UA, ties domain ownership to trademark rights and significantly reduces cybersquatting at the .UA level, since one cannot casually grab a ‘.ua’ domain without having the matching trademark.

For third-level domains under ‘.ua’ (such as <example.com.ua>, <example.kyiv.ua>, etc.), the policy historically did not require a matching trademark, so those were open to public registration and thus more prone to cybersquatting. To address bad-faith registrations, in 2019 the .UA Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UA-DRP) was launched. This is an alternative dispute resolution system, modelled on ICANN’s UDRP, administered by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Initially, from March 2019, the UA-DRP applied only to second-level .UA domains (though such disputes are rare due to the trademark requirement). Subsequently, the policy was extended to certain third-level domains as well – in recent years, domain names in popular zones like .com.ua, .org.ua and regional sub-domains (like .kyiv.ua) have been made subject to the UA-DRP on the same principles. Under the UA-DRP, a trademark owner can file a complaint with WIPO alleging that a particular ‘.ua’ (or covered third-level ‘.ua’) domain was registered or is being used in bad faith, that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, and that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in it. Notably, the UA-DRP requires the complainant to prove either bad-faith registration or bad-faith use (whereas the UDRP requires both), making it slightly easier for brand owners to recover domains from cybersquatters who may have passively held a domain.

If the WIPO panel finds in favour of the trademark owner, the remedies available are cancellation of the domain or transfer to the complainant. The losing domain registrant has 14 days to file a court action in Ukraine to contest the decision if they wish (which would suspend implementation of the transfer). In practice, UA-DRP cases have been effective. For example, one of the first decisions under the UA-DRP involved the domain <oppo.ua> which was transferred to the owner of the OPPO trademark after the panel found the registration was made in bad faith by a party who had licensed a trademark only to game the system. Since the introduction of the policy, numerous cybersquatting disputes concerning Ukrainian domains have been resolved through WIPO arbitration rather than litigation in Ukrainian courts. This offers brand owners a quicker and more cost-effective path to enforce their rights online.

Conclusion

Ukraine’s trademark prosecution system has undergone significant updates in line with international standards, particularly with the introduction of the 2024 Rules that streamline application procedures and broaden the scope of protectable trademarks. The examination process remains rigorous on both absolute and relative grounds, ensuring that new filings do not conflict with prior rights or public interests. Brand owners benefit from a transparent opposition process and the ability to appeal unfavourable decisions through a specialised Appeals Chamber and the courts. At the same time, non-use revocation and invalidation actions serve as checks to clear the register of unused or improperly obtained marks, reinforcing the principle that trademark rights in Ukraine are for those who use them in trade.

Enforcement avenues in Ukraine cover a broad spectrum: civil litigation allows rights holders to claim injunctions and damages, while customs measures provide frontline protection against counterfeit imports. Criminal provisions, though requiring initiative by the trademark owner, pose a serious deterrent to counterfeiters when damages are significant. The interplay between trademarks and domain names under the .UA regime is a noteworthy feature that helps prevent cybersquatting and has been bolstered by the UA-DRP policy for dispute resolution.

In summary, the current Ukrainian trademark landscape is largely aligned with European IP norms and practices. Applicants should be mindful of the new formalities, and rights holders should take advantage of the tools available (customs recordal, UA-DRP, etc.) to enforce their marks. The ongoing war has introduced some unique provisional measures, but these are aimed at preserving legitimate interests under exceptional circumstances. Businesses navigating the Ukrainian trademark system today will find it a generally robust and fair regime, providing solid protection for brand assets in Ukraine and a framework that continues to evolve in harmony with international standards.