Why Ukraine's IP Office Refuses Trademarks: Lessons from Appeals Chamber Practice

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.

The Appeals Chamber: A Second Chance Without Going to Court

Where the Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations (UANIPIO) refuses to register a trademark, the applicant has two routes of challenge: the courts, or the Office’s Appeals Chamber. Under Article 15(1) of the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services”, an appeal to the Appeals Chamber may be filed within two months of receiving the Office’s decision.

The Appeals Chamber is a collegial body that re-examines the examiner’s conclusion on the merits. Its decision is approved by a UANIPIO order and published openly. It is a faster and cheaper tool than litigation, so understanding the logic of its decisions has direct practical value. Grounds for refusal fall into two broad groups – absolute and relative.

Absolute Grounds: When a Sign Cannot Be a Mark “in Itself”

Absolute grounds (Article 6(2) of the Law) concern the sign itself, regardless of third-party rights. A mark will not be protected if it lacks distinctiveness, is descriptive (indicating the kind, quality, composition or purpose of the goods), consists only of signs customary in trade, or is capable of misleading consumers.

A telling case is the word sign “Coffee candy” (application No. m 2023 21855, decision of 17 December 2025). The applicant argued that, for Ukrainian consumers, this was a “fanciful” phrase. The Appeals Chamber disagreed: for goods within the concept of “candy”, the sign directly describes the kind of product and its composition (coffee), and therefore lacks distinctiveness.

A similar fate met “easy learn” (application No. m 2023 03160, decision of 29 January 2026) for education and training services (Class 41). The arguments that the phrase was “fanciful” and that the average consumer might not know its translation did not work: the sign was found descriptive and non-distinctive, and – for unrelated services – misleading.

📋 А foreign language does not make a sign registrable Both “Coffee candy” and “easy learn” are in English. But where the words directly describe the goods or services, the meaning is easily read by the target audience, and “foreignness” adds no distinctiveness. Descriptive stays descriptive in any language.

Another typical scenario is customary industry terms. In “buy now pay later” (application No. m 2023 11712, decision of 12 February 2026) the Appeals Chamber upheld refusal on several grounds at once: the sign is customary in bona fide and established trade practice for short-term instalment-credit services, descriptive of their purpose, misleading for unrelated services – and, on top of that, confusingly similar to an earlier registered mark. An attempt to monopolise the name of the financial service itself predictably failed.

Relative Grounds: Conflict With Third-Party Rights

Relative grounds (Article 6(3) of the Law) protect not the public interest but the rights of others – owners of earlier registered marks, geographical indications and so on. Even a strong, original sign will be refused if it conflicts with someone’s prior rights.

In “oптимальна аптека” (“optimal pharmacy”) case (application No. m 2021 24413, decision of 18 February 2026) refusal was upheld due to confusing similarity with the earlier registered word mark “оптимальна аптека” (Optimal pharmacy) for related Class 35 services. Notably, even original colour and graphic styling did not save the application: the word elements were semantically identical.

A separate category is conflict with geographical indications. In “polyana kvasova” case (application No. m 2019 20261, decision of 24 February 2026) the sign was refused because of similarity with the registered geographical indication “polyana kvasova”. Even the applicant’s arguments about its own series of “Polyana Kvasova” marks and long use did not change the outcome: a geographical indication may be used – including in one’s own trademark – only by a producer entered in the Register of Geographical Indications.

In brief – five recent decisions and the grounds for refusal:

Sign	Ground for refusal	Application / decision
Coffee candy	Descriptive (kind and composition – “candy”); no distinctiveness	No. m 2023 21855 17.12.2025
Easy learn	Descriptive and non-distinctive for training services; misleading for unrelated services	No. m 2023 03160 29.01.2026
Buy now pay later	Customary trade term; descriptive; misleading; confusingly similar to an earlier mark	No. m 2023 11712 12.02.2026
optimal pharmacy	Confusingly similar to the earlier registered mark “оптимальна аптека”	No. m 2021 24413 18.02.2026
Polyana kvasova	Conflict with the registered geographical indication “polyana kvasova”	No. m 2019 20261 24.02.2026

Source: decisions of the UANIPIO Appeals Chamber (nipo.gov.ua). Applicants anonymised.

What This Practice Shows

Across different signs, common patterns emerge that are worth taking into account before filing:

• Descriptive equals vulnerable. The closer a name is to describing the goods or services themselves (composition, kind, purpose, quality), the higher the risk of refusal – regardless of the sign’s language.
• Acquired distinctiveness must be proven. Applicants routinely cite long use and investment, but declarations are not enough: convincing evidence is needed that consumers perceive the sign as one party’s mark.
• A clearance search is essential. Conflict with an earlier mark or a geographical indication is a frequent cause of refusal that can be identified in advance.
• Styling does not rescue a weak word element. Where a descriptive or already-taken word dominates, original design alone will not secure protection.

Practical Tips Before Filing

Choose fanciful or at least suggestive signs rather than directly descriptive ones. Run a search against trademark and geographical-indication databases before filing. If a sign has a “weak” element, prepare evidence of acquired distinctiveness in advance. And if you are refused, do not rush to court: a well-argued appeal to the Appeals Chamber is often a faster and cheaper route – provided the argument is built with the above practice in mind. For foreign applicants in particular, local counsel can align the strategy with how the Ukrainian office actually reasons.