Genuine Use or Lose It: Ukraine's Supreme Court Reinforces the Genuine Use Principle in Trademark Non-Use Cancellation Actions

Supreme Court ruling of 6 May 2026 in case No. 757/39111/24: evidentiary standards for proving trademark use in Ukraine, the limits of martial law as an excuse for non-use, and what this means for international brand owners.

Under Ukrainian law, a trademark registration that is not put to genuine use in Ukraine for five consecutive years becomes vulnerable to cancellation at the request of any person. In a ruling of 6 May 2026 in case No. 757/39111/24, the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the early termination of a 2008 trademark certificate for non-use and, notably, articulated the principle of genuine use of a trademark as an express doctrinal foundation of this category of disputes. The ruling consolidates the position taken by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on 5 March 2025 in case No. 910/8781/23 and offers international brand owners a clear picture of how Ukrainian courts assess evidence of use – and why references to the ongoing war do not automatically excuse non-use.

Background of the dispute

In August 2024, danjaq, LLC, a us rights holder, sued an individual owner of a Ukrainian combined trademark registered in January 2008 for services in Classes 35 and 45 of the Nice Classification, together with the Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations (UANIPIO). The claimant sought full early termination of the certificate on the ground that the mark had not been used in Ukraine for at least five consecutive years, relying on Article 18(4) of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services”.

The claimant’s legitimate interest was straightforward: in May 2024 it had filed four of its own trademark applications for services in Classes 35 and 45, whose registration the dormant senior mark could block. During the cassation proceedings the claimant was replaced by its successor, London Ultimate Holdings, LLC, which had acquired the rights under those applications in November 2025 – a substitution the Supreme Court allowed without any effect on the merits.

The Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv granted the claim on 2 April 2025, the Kyiv Court of Appeal affirmed on 21 October 2025, and the Supreme Court has now dismissed the trademark owner’s cassation appeal, leaving the termination in force.

The legal framework: national law read through an EU lens

The Supreme Court once again construed Article 18(4) of the Trademark Law in conjunction with Ukraine’s international commitments: Articles 197-200 of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436, Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 and the Paris Convention. The current wording of Article 18(4) was introduced in 2020 specifically to implement EU standards, so the court reads it in light of its grammatical meaning, systemic connections and purpose – an interpretive approach familiar to European practitioners.

The core rule mirrors the EU model: where a mark has not been genuinely used in Ukraine, in whole or for part of the registered goods and services, for a continuous five-year period from publication of the grant (or from any later date), any person may apply to court for full or partial early termination of the certificate, unless the owner shows proper reasons for non-use. Resumption of use before the claim is filed can cure the defect, except where preparations began within three months before the filing and only after the owner learned of the impending action.

The court also reaffirmed the Grand Chamber’s March 2025 holding: the five-year non-use period does not restart upon a change of ownership of the mark. Acquiring a dormant Ukrainian registration does not buy the new owner a fresh five-year grace period – a point of real practical significance for portfolio acquisitions and assignments involving Ukrainian marks.

The genuine use principle, spelled out

The most quotable part of the ruling is the court’s express formulation of what the genuine use principle entails:

• cleansing the State Register of trademark certificates that have long gone unused;
• actual commercial exploitation – trademark rights must be genuinely used in business activity, not merely maintained on paper;
• no blocking function – trademark protection may not be deployed to restrict the activities of other market participants.

For foreign brand owners, this is a double-edged message. It confirms that non-use cancellation is a reliable clearance tool against dormant senior rights in Ukraine – and equally, that their own Ukrainian registrations are held to the same standard.

What does not count as use: the evidentiary standard

The burden of proving use, or proper reasons for non-use, rests on the certificate owner. The ruling is a practical checklist of evidence Ukrainian courts will reject:

• Domain name registration alone. Registering and maintaining a domain name containing the mark’s verbal element does not prove use for the registered services. The owner must show that a functioning website exists and that the relevant services are actually offered and provided through it; domain evidence is relevant only in combination with proof of actual trading.
• Commercial offers and business correspondence. Letters amounting to mere commercial proposals – without proof of delivery to counterparties, concluded contracts or services actually rendered – do not establish use. Correspondence conducted by third parties, absent a documented legal basis such as a licence, is not attributed to the owner.
• Use by affiliated companies without a licence. The courts examined the business activities of companies beneficially owned by the certificate holder and found they did not cover Class 35 and 45 services; in any event, use by related entities counts for the owner only where a licence or the owner’s consent is in place. Under Ukrainian law, use with the owner’s permission is attributed to the owner – but that permission must be demonstrable.

Martial law is not an automatic excuse for non-use

The defence most relevant to the current environment failed. The owner argued that use had become impossible after 24 February 2022 due to russia’s full-scale invasion and the occupation of the city where he had operated, relying on the well-known general letter of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Cci) of 28 February 2022 certifying the war as a force majeure event.

Consistent with its recent case law on force majeure (rulings of 8 October 2025 in case No. 610/1599/24 and 15 June 2023 in case No. 910/8580/22), the Supreme Court held that the cci’s general letter has no prejudicial force and does not, by itself, constitute a proper reason for non-use. Martial law excuses non-use only where the owner proves a specific causal link – that the war-related circumstances made it impossible to use the particular mark for the particular services. A cci certificate or letter is weighed together with all other evidence, never in isolation.

This aligns with the broader trend in Ukrainian jurisprudence since 2022: courts consistently reject generic references to the war and require individualised proof of impact. Brand owners whose Ukrainian operations genuinely have been disrupted should document that disruption contemporaneously – location of facilities, destruction or occupation, supply chain evidence, and preparatory steps towards resuming use.

Standing and the scope of the dispute

The Supreme Court confirmed that standing in non-use cancellation actions is broad: the statute allows any person to sue, and here the claimant additionally held pending applications whose fate depended on the contested certificate. Importantly, the court stressed that similarity or identity between the contested mark and the claimant’s applied-for signs is outside the subject matter of a non-use case. The only questions are whether the mark was used and whether proper reasons for non-use exist – confusion analysis belongs to opposition and invalidation proceedings, not here.

Takeaways for international brand owners

If you hold Ukrainian registrations

• Audit your Ukrainian portfolio: any mark unused in Ukraine for five consecutive years is exposed to cancellation by any third party, including a competitor clearing the way for its own filing.
• Preserve use evidence to Ukrainian standards: contracts, invoices, delivery documents, advertising, and proof that your website actively offers the registered goods or services in Ukraine.
• If use is channelled through local distributors or affiliates, put written licences or consents in place – otherwise their use may not be attributed to you.
• Do not rely on the war as a blanket defence: build a file showing precisely how hostilities prevented use of the specific mark, and record preparatory steps towards resumption.

If a dormant Ukrainian mark blocks your entry

• Non-use cancellation before Ukrainian courts is a well-trodden, predictable route supported by settled Supreme Court practice aligned with EU law.
• An assignment of the blocking mark, even mid-proceedings, will not reset the five-year clock.
• Fix the evidentiary record before filing: market monitoring, web archives and attorney inquiries to registrars and administrators proved persuasive for the claimant in this case.

The 6 May 2026 ruling confirms that Ukraine’s approach to trademark non-use is stable, EU-aligned and enforcement-friendly for genuine market participants. A Ukrainian trademark certificate is a market instrument, not a registry entry, and the Supreme Court now says so in as many words.

ADVANCE PARTNERS represents both claimants and trademark owners in non-use cancellation proceedings before Ukrainian courts and advises international brand owners on trademark portfolio audits and use-evidence strategies in Ukraine.