In Ukrainian IP litigation, the court expert’s opinion often decides the case: trademark similarity or the use of industrial property is almost always established through special knowledge. Unsurprisingly, parties look for ways to shake such an opinion – and one of the most popular tools of recent years has been the peer review (recenziia) of the expert’s opinion. But is it evidence? A year ago the Supreme Court said yes. In January 2026 the answer became no.

What do you do when a third party’s trademark registration stands in your way in Ukraine? The law offers at least two tools: an invalidity action and a non-use cancellation action. So why not use both at once? A case from our practice shows why such a “two-front attack” can end with one of the cases being stayed — and what strategic lessons rights holders should draw.

You have picked a name, commissioned a logo and invested in marketing – only to receive a refusal from the IP office. It is a common scenario. A review of recent decisions of the UANIPIO Appeals Chamber for 2025–2026 shows what most often gets applications rejected in Ukraine – and how to avoid the same trap.

Registering a trademark in Ukraine has become noticeably faster, more digital and more convenient over the past year – especially for foreign applicants. Here are the key practical improvements we see in our own work.

Not every complimentary word about a product makes a sign descriptive. Between a mark that directly names a product’s qualities and one that merely hints at a desired result runs a thin but decisive line. A recent UANIPIO Appeals Chamber decision on the sign “Good Hair” shows exactly where that line falls.

Third-party brands are mentioned online every day – in reviews, comparisons, blogs and educational materials. Much of this is entirely lawful. But an “informational article” can function not as neutral content, but as a tool for driving customers to a commercial website. Where exactly does permissible referential use end and infringement begin?