Lookalike Products in E-Commerce: How to Protect Your Brand's Trade Dress in Ukraine

In the digital economy, a product’s visual identity can decide a sale in a fraction of a second. A consumer scrolling through an Instagram feed or a marketplace storefront responds instinctively to a familiar colour, shape or typeface – often before reading a single word. Rights holders in every consumer sector face the same growing challenge: a surge in lookalike products that systematically exploit this visual recognition.

Unlike classic counterfeiting, lookalike manufacturers operate more subtly. They do not copy your trademark outright. Instead, they free-ride on the visual equity your brand has built, creating a misleading impression of association with a well-known product, diverting loyal customers, and eroding your market share without technically infringing a registered mark.

If you are a foreign brand, a manufacturer whose packaging is being imitated by a local competitor, or an IP owner seeking counsel in Ukraine, this article explains the legal framework and the practical tools available to protect your trade dress.

⚠️ Key point: Trade dress protection in Ukraine operates through unfair competition law – even without a registered mark that is directly copied. The AMCU’s 2025 enforcement record confirms that visual identity can be effectively protected as a legal asset.

1. Trade Dress Protection Under Ukrainian Law: The Legal Framework

In international IP practice, trade dress refers to the total commercial image and overall appearance of a product or its packaging – the combination of elements such as layout composition, typefaces, graphic design, colour palette, material texture, container shape, and other visual features that enable consumers to identify the source of a product without reference to the word mark.

Ukrainian legislation does not define trade dress as a standalone legal concept. However, the constituent elements of commercial appearance are effectively protected through the Law of Ukraine On Protection Against Unfair Competition (the “Law”), which provides two key mechanisms.

Article 4 of the Law – Unauthorised Use of Designations

Article 4 prohibits the unauthorised use of designations, including packaging design, where such use causes, or is likely to cause, confusion with another business entity’s goods or activities. This provision is the principal statutory instrument for combating the circulation of lookalike products and is the ground most frequently relied upon in AMCU proceedings.

Article 6 of the Law – Copying the External Appearance of a Product

Article 6 protects the external appearance of a product, including packaging shape, structural elements of the container and other visual features. Placing on the market goods that copy the appearance of another product is permissible only where the consumer can unambiguously identify the manufacturer of the copy. In the absence of adequate labelling, or where the appearance misleads consumers, the conduct may constitute unfair competition.

2. The khortytsa / shake Case: AMCU Enforcement in Practice (December 2025)

A landmark 2025 decision illustrates how Ukrainian law operates in this area. On 4 December 2025, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) found that LLC “opt-systems” had infringed Article 4 of the Law by unlawfully using packaging design for low-alcohol sparkling drinks sold under the mark “khortytsa” – specifically the cocktail series Bora Bora, Sex on the Beach and Cosmopolitan – which were confusingly similar to the packaging of “shake” cocktails manufactured by LLC “Novi Produkty Ukrainy”.

The AMCU initiated proceedings following a complaint by the rights holder. A consumer survey, conducted by the Committee itself, confirmed that the respondent’s actions were liable to cause confusion between the two businesses. The AMCU found a breach of Article 4, imposed a fine of uah 21,519,000 on the infringer, and ordered the company to cease the violation.

📋 Why this matters for foreign rights holders: The AMCU actively uses consumer surveys as primary evidence of confusion – a methodology familiar to practitioners in EU and us trade dress litigation. The case confirms that meaningful financial penalties are a real and enforceable outcome in Ukraine.

3. A Comprehensive Trade Dress Strategy: Four Pillars

Trade dress protection in Ukraine is not a single filing or a single enforcement action. It is a layered, integrated system combining IP registration with active market surveillance and enforcement.

Pillar 1. Building Your IP Portfolio

Protection should be established before a product reaches the Ukrainian market. An IP audit of brand guidelines, packaging design and digital assets should be conducted at the mock-up approval stage. The resulting protection structure should cover:

• Trademark registration. Register the full label, not just the logo, as a composite (combined) trademark in Ukraine, preferably in colour where the colour palette contributes to distinctiveness. For non-standard packaging (bottles, flacons), consider filing three-dimensional (3D) trademark applications.
• Industrial design registration. Register the shape and design of packaging or containers as industrial designs immediately after mock-up approval. This provides enforceable title to volumetric, structural and visual elements of the product and a solid evidentiary foundation in infringement proceedings.
• Copyright documentation. Record the assignment of economic rights to illustrations, typefaces, graphic elements and characters in written agreements with designers. This step is critical for subsequent enforcement before Ukrainian courts.

Pillar 2. Market Monitoring

• E-commerce platforms. Monitor Ukrainian and international marketplaces (Prom.ua, Rozetka, Amazon) not only by brand name but also by keywords and using AI-powered image-recognition tools to identify visually similar products.
• Social media. Track content comparing your products with imitations. Preserve URLs and screenshots through web-archiving services – these carry greater evidential weight before the AMCU and Ukrainian courts.
• Internal response protocols. Designate responsible personnel for receiving infringement reports, set verification timescales, and define the decision-making path, including initiation of marketplace takedown complaints.

Pillar 3. Marketplace Takedowns

Major platforms operating in Ukraine, including Amazon, Prom.ua and olx, have their own ipr policies and Notice-and-Takedown procedures. Complaints grounded in registered Ukrainian trademarks are processed most rapidly. Where there is no direct use of your registered mark, the complaint must be built on likelihood of confusion and trade dress copying arguments.

Pillar 4. AMCU Proceedings and Litigation

• AMCU proceedings are particularly effective for packaging imitation (trade dress) cases. Consumer surveys demonstrating actual or potential confusion serve as key evidence, as confirmed by the khortytsa/shake case. Fines can reach tens of millions of hryvnias.
• Court proceedings enable proprietary and non-proprietary sanctions: damages; seizure and destruction of infringing goods; and injunctions prohibiting further use of the imitated packaging design.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Foreign Rights Holders

Ukrainian law provides a robust and practically enforced framework for trade dress protection – even without a registered trademark that is directly copied. For foreign brands and rights holders, the most effective strategy combines Ukrainian trademark and industrial design registrations, continuous surveillance of Ukrainian e-commerce and social media, and readiness to initiate AMCU complaints backed by consumer survey evidence.

A rights holder who systematically protects trade dress in Ukraine does not merely reduce the risk of unfair competition – they build a legally secured asset that supports business valuation, licensing and sustainable market position.

Strategic protection of trade dress is not an expense – it is a long-term investment in the enforceability and value of your brand.