Laudatory vs Descriptive: When a Mark Like “Good Hair” Is Registrable in Ukraine

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.

📋 Case at a glance
Sign: “Good Hair” (stylised word sign)
Application: No. m 2024 02902, Class 03 goods
Registration decision: UANIPIO, 13.11.2025
Appeals Chamber decision: 12.05.2026 – appeal dismissed, granting decision upheld
Grounds of appeal: paragraphs 4, 5, 6 of Article 6(2) of the Law

The Facts

The case concerns a stylised word sign “Good Hair”, filed for Class 03 goods (cosmetics), a large part of which are hair-care products (shampoos, dyes, sprays, conditioners, and so on). After substantive examination, UANIPIO decided to register the sign.

A party that had earlier filed an opposition against the application during examination challenged the granting decision before the Appeals Chamber, arguing that the sign failed three absolute grounds under Article 6(2) of the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services”: it is descriptive (fourth paragraph), deceptive as to the goods (fifth paragraph), and deceptive as to the producer (sixth paragraph). The Chamber examined each ground in turn.

Ground 1. Descriptiveness: Why “Good Hair” Does Not Describe the Goods

The key question is whether the sign directly and unambiguously indicates the kind, quality, composition or purpose of the goods. The Chamber restated the test: descriptiveness is judged by the ordinary understanding of the average consumer, and first visual perception must, without additional reasoning, create the impression that the sign describes the goods or their characteristics.

Applying this test, the Chamber found that “Good Hair” describes a desired result, not the goods themselves. The word “good” is subjective and evaluative and points to no specific characteristic: size, colour, texture, composition. The combination “good” + “hair” evokes only a general association with well-groomed hair; and, being in English, it to some extent requires the consumer to take an additional step of reasoning and interpretation.

📋 A rule worth remembering If reasoning, association or explanation is needed to arrive at the descriptive meaning of a sign, the sign is not descriptive. Laudatory (evaluative) words such as “good” describe the desired result rather than the product itself, and so retain distinctiveness.

This is the line between a descriptive mark (a direct statement of qualities) and a suggestive or laudatory one (a hint requiring inference). The former is denied protection; the latter is registrable. The Chamber’s reasoning invites comparison with the EU approach to laudatory marks, though EUIPO practice on promotional wording is itself not uniform.

Ground 2. Deceptive as to the Goods

The appellant argued that some of the listed goods are not intended for use in hair care(facial toners, essential oils for aromatherapy, cosmetic masks), so labelling them “Good Hair” misleads consumers as to purpose.

The Chamber rejected this too. A sign is deceptive only where it creates an impression of the goods that does not correspond to reality. As “Good Hair” is not descriptive and contains no false information, and the listed products are widely used in cosmetology and may form part of preparations intended for scalp and hair care, there is no basis to find deception. Deception, in the Chamber’s view, arises where a mark evokes an association with entirely different goods or properties – which was not established here.

Ground 3. Deceptive as to the Producer – and a High Evidentiary Bar

The most instructive part concerns the claim that the sign would be associated with certain third parties, thereby misleading consumers as to the producer. Here the Chamber articulated an important evidentiary standard.

First, “Good Hair” itself contains no names, company designations, place names or geographical references – at the level of content it identifies no particular undertaking. Second, internet printouts and references to the activities of third-party companies are merely informational; they do not prove the decisive point – that a stable associative link has formed among the relevant public between the sign and a specific producer as the single source of the goods.

📋 The standard for “deceptive as to producer” It is not enough to show that an identical or similar sign is used by third parties. One must prove, with proper evidence, a stable associative link in consumers’ minds between the sign and a specific producer. Assumptions and printouts are no substitute.

What Fell Outside the Appeal

The decision offers two useful procedural lessons. First, the appellant alleged that the applicant systematically files marks resembling third parties’ international marks and framed this as unfair competition under Articles 32 and 33 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine. The Chamber noted that such circumstances cannot serve as a ground for an appeal against registration and fall outside the subject matter of the case, and so were left out of account. In practice, these issues must be raised before the Antimonopoly Committee or the courts.

Second, an expert opinion submitted by one side was not considered, because it was filed out of the time limit set by the Chamber’s Regulation, and the reasons the party gave for not filing on time were found unpersuasive. Evidence must be filed with the appeal or response to appeal, or within the set deadline.

Practical Takeaways

• Laudatory and suggestive signs are registrable. “Good”, “perfect”, “smart” describe an impression, not the product, and usually retain distinctiveness – unlike direct statements of qualities.
• A “deceptive as to producer” appeal ground needs evidence. Prepare proof of a stable consumer association (surveys, recognition data), not just printouts and assumptions.
• Raise such matters before the appropriate authority. Issues relating to unfair competition are dealt with by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine or the courts, not in the course of an appeal against the registration decision. Respect evidence deadlines. An expert opinion or other evidence filed late and unjustified may be rejected.
• Assess the specification of goods realistically. A broad specification does not by itself make a sign deceptive – it is enough that the goods may be used in the relevant field. To establish deceptiveness, it must be shown that such use is impossible, rather than merely uncommon.