KPMG Law Ukraine's specialists have prepared an overview of the latest amendments to intellectual property regulation that took place in May–August 2026, as well as relevant recent case law. In this latest issue of the IP Regulatory Digest, you can learn about key legislative changes and new initiatives, as well as significant court decisions in the field of intellectual property rights protection.
Regulatory news
Amendments to the Procedure for Paying Fees for Actions Related to the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
On 16 May 2026, Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) No. 595 dated 13 May 2026 entered into force, introducing amendments to the Procedure for paying fees for actions related to protecting intellectual property rights, as approved by Resolution of the CMU No. 1716 dated 23 December 2004 (the Procedure).
The Procedure now provides for paying 90% of the fee related to filing an application for an intellectual property object in electronic form, with such fees covered by the codes 10100 (for filing an application (international application) for an invention, utility model), 20100 (for filing an application for an industrial design), 30100 (for filing an application for registration of a layout of semiconductor products), 40100 (for filing an application for a trade mark by one applicant), 40200 (for filing an application for a trade mark by several applicants) and 50100 (for filing an application for registration of a geographical indication).
The Procedure also establishes benefits related to protecting intellectual property rights for veteran entrepreneurship entities. Specifically, veteran entrepreneurship is subject to reduced fees for actions related to protecting intellectual property rights in the following manner:
- 25% fees of the established amount in cases where the specified person is applying for an invention (utility model), an industrial design, a semiconductor product layout or is the owner of a relevant patent or certificate.
- 50% fees of the established amount in cases where the specified person is applying for a trademark application, registration of a geographical indication or is the owner of a trademark certificate.
Meanwhile, fees for actions related to protecting IP rights for a veteran entrepreneur applying together with another person who does not have such a status are also subject to fee reductions, to be paid in the following amounts:
- 50% fees of the established amount in cases when these persons are applying for an invention (utility model), an industrial design, a semiconductor product layout or are the owners of a relevant patent or certificate
- 75% fees of the established amount in cases where the specified persons are applying for a trademark application, registration of a geographical indication or are the owners of a trademark certificate.
Confirmation of a person's status as a subject of veteran entrepreneurship can be obtained via the National Intellectual Property Authority from the Unified State Register of War Veterans, available through electronic information interaction.
Publication of draft laws on trademark protection
On 15 July 2026, the Ministry of Economy and Environment of Ukraine (the Ministry of Economy) published for discussion three draft laws related to the protection of trademarks.
Draft Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine on Trademarks"
This draft law provides for harmonising relevant terminology with the terminology used in the new draft Law of Ukraine "On Trademarks", EU Directive 2015/2436 of 16 December 2015 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks (EU Directive 2015/2436), Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of 14 June 2017 on the European Union Trademark (EU Regulation 2017/1001), the Association Agreement between Ukraine, of the one part, and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States of the other party ("Association Agreement"), etc.
Furthermore, the draft law also clarifies the following matters:
- Definition of a trademark, as well as types of designations that can be trademarks, including the conditions for eligibility for acquiring intellectual property rights to a trademark.
- The range of holders of intellectual property rights to a trademark, which are: individuals and legal entities under whom the trademark is registered, other actors involved in private relations who have acquired rights to the trademark in accordance with the Civil Code, or another relevant law or deal.
- Grounds for acquiring rights to a trademark: national registration, international registration valid in the territory of Ukraine, other grounds as determined by law, and the scope of legal protections for the trademark.
- The exclusive nature of the property rights of the trademark owner and their belonging to the holder of intellectual property rights.
- The date from which the intellectual property rights to the trademark are valid, as well as the term of their validity.
- The procedure for terminating trademark registration or invalidating trademark registration.
Draft Law of Ukraine "On Trademarks"
This draft law provides for the following changes to the current legislation in the field of legal protection of trademarks:
- Fixing absolute grounds to refuse or invalidate registration, as well as relative grounds for cancelling or invalidating registration.
- Establishing the procedure and terms for examining an application for national trademark registration.
- Establishing the procedure for filing and considering objections to trademark registration, as well as cancelling trademark registration.
- Establishing the grounds and procedure for invalidating and terminating trademark registration.
- Introducing the regional principle of the exhaustion of rights.
- Providing provisions for extending EU trademarks and applications for EU trademarks to the territory of Ukraine following Ukraine's pending accession to the EU.
- Providing for the possibility of prohibiting the use of the EU trademark in Ukraine if such use violates the rights granted to the bona fide owner of the trademark on the basis of its registration in Ukraine, as well as protection against infringement of the rights to the EU trademark in Ukraine.
- Determining the court competent to consider cases in disputes regarding EU trademark disputes in Ukraine.
Draft Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to Ensure Consistency of Terminology"
This draft law provides for harmonising terminology with that used in the new draft Law of Ukraine "On Trademarks", EU Directive 2015/2436, Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the Association, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On the Legal Protection of Geographical Indications".
Specifically, the law proposes amending the Code of Ukraine “On Administrative Offences”, the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, replacing the term "mark for goods and services" with "trademark", "trade name" with "commercial name", "qualified indication of the origin of goods" with "geographical indication".
Judicial practice
Regarding the ownership of trademarks and industrial designs of former spouses
The Supreme Court of Ukraine has finally resolved a dispute regarding the ownership of trademarks and industrial designs of former spouses, an ongoing case since 2019. The Supreme Court outlined the peculiarities of the legal regime related to intellectual property rights acquired during marriage, and the consequences of their assignment or transfer without the permission of one of the spouses. The relevant resolution of the Supreme Court of 5 March 2026 can be accessed via the link.
Circumstances of the case
The plaintiff and his ex-wife jointly ran a business for producing and selling roasted seeds. Trademarks and industrial designs created during the marriage were registered to the wife, who subsequently passed them on to her daughter without the consent of the plaintiff. The latter appealed to the court with demands to invalidate the assignment agreements and cancel the state registration of rights under the new owner.
Court decisions
The district court partially satisfied the claim, recognising the assignment agreements as invalid. However, the district court refused to cancel the relevant registration records. The Court of Appeal later overturned the decision in this part and additionally satisfied the request to cancel registration. In 2024, the Supreme Court sent the case for a new trial due to insufficient verification of the acquirer's good faith. Based on the results of the reconsideration, the Court of Appeal came to similar conclusions which the Supreme Court ultimately left unchanged.
Legal opinion of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court confirmed that property rights to trademarks and industrial designs may be the subject of joint property of spouses, and the presumption of commonality also applies to intellectual property acquired during marriage. Disposal of property that is in joint ownership is therefore carried out with the consent of all co-owners, unless otherwise established by law.
The conclusion of an agreement on the assignment of joint property by one of the spouses without the consent of the other spouse may only be the basis for invalidating such an agreement if the court establishes that the third party (i.e. the counterparty to such an agreement) acted in bad faith, specifically if such third party knew or could not otherwise have been unaware under the circumstances of the case that the property belongs to the spouses under joint ownership rights, as well as the fact that the spouse who entered into such contract has not obtained the consent of the other spouse.
In the specific case in question, property rights to the disputed intellectual property, which are the joint property of the spouses, were assigned without obtaining the written consent of the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeal determined that the acquirer is the daughter of the former spouses. The acquirer was reliably aware of the existence of disputes between the spouses regarding the division of joint property, including intellectual property, and was therefore undeniably aware that such property rights were subject to spousal joint ownership, as well as the fact that her mother had not received consent from her father related to the assignment of such rights. As the disputed contracts were concluded in violation of the requirements of the law, the conclusion of the courts on their invalidation is justified.
Finally, the relevant legislation provides that it is not the contract that is necessarily subject to mandatory state registration but the fact of transfer of exclusive intellectual property rights to a trademark (industrial design). The Court of Appeal therefore reasonably established that the mere recognition of the disputed transactions as invalid would not ensure restoring the violated rights of the plaintiff in full, and therefore correctly satisfied the plaintiff’s claims for cancelling the state registration of ownership rights by the new owner to the disputed intellectual property rights.
Regarding recognising the validity of reasons for non-use of a trademark
The Supreme Court of Ukraine has determined whether a legal ban on a certain type of activity in Ukraine, gambling specifically, can be regarded as a valid reason for non-use of a trademark if such a ban existed at the stage of trademark registration and the owner was already aware of such a ban. The resolution of the Supreme Court of 6 May 2026 can be accessed via the link.
Circumstances of the case
The plaintiff, Livescore Limited, filed a lawsuit with the court to prematurely terminate the validity of the Ukrainian certificate to a trademark related to its owner as an individual.
Substantiating the claims, the plaintiff noted that their own international application for trademark registration passed the formal procedures of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and received the status of international registration, with notification of partial registration in Ukraine later received due to the fact that the claimed designation in one of the declared classes is similar to the point of confusion with the defendant's trademark which was registered in 2012.
The plaintiff emphasised that the defendant had not used its trademark for all the claimed services within the specified class in the last five years, with this fact claimed as the basis for early termination of said trademark.
Court decisions
By the decision of the district court of Kyiv, the claim was satisfied in full. The court concluded that the plaintiff proved the fact of non-use of the trademark by the defendant, and the latter did not provide evidence of the validity of the reasons for the trademark’s non-use.
However, the Court of Appeal cancelled the decision of the Court of First Instance for early termination of the certificate in Ukraine for services related to class 41 of the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification) as "arrangement of casinos" and "gambling services", with a new decision made to dismiss the claim. The motive for such finding was that the defendant had valid reasons for not using the trademark, namely the effect of the Law of Ukraine "On the Prohibition of Gambling Business in Ukraine". The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that legal restrictions are a valid reason for non-use of a trademark related to such services under class 41 of the Nice Classification, such as the arrangement of casinos and gambling services.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court subsequently overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal in terms of cancelling the original ruling of the Court of First Instance related to early termination of the trademark, thus upholding the ruling of the Court of First Instance in this part.
Legal opinion of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, disagreeing with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal, confirmed the ruling of the Court of First Instance that the application for registering the disputed trademark was filed in 2011, during the period when the relevant gambling ban was already in force in Ukraine. At the time of trademark registration and in the subsequent nine years, the activities of casinos and gambling business were prohibited in Ukraine, a situation of which the defendant was aware. Legislative prohibition could therefore not be considered a valid reason for not using the trademark for the relevant services as such restrictions could have been foreseen at the time of registering the disputed trademark.
Furthermore, while prohibitions on gambling (referred to by the owner of the disputed trademark to justify the existence of valid reasons for its non-use) were later lifted in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On State Regulation of Activities on the Organisation and Conduct of Gambling" which came into force on 13 August 2020, the owner has not exercised the right to use the disputed trademark since this decision.
The Supreme Court noted that the Court of First Instance came to correct and reasonable conclusions that there were no valid reasons for the defendant's non-use of the trademark for five years.
On the criteria for proving violations of personal interest and rights by the plaintiff
The Supreme Court of Ukraine issued a decision in which it determined the criteria for plaintiffs to prove violations of personal interest and rights in invalidation cases regarding patents for utility models. The resolution of the Supreme Court dated 30 June 2026 can be accessed via link.
Circumstances of the case
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court in which they asked to invalidate a patent of Ukraine to a utility model, under claims motivated by the utility model’s non-compliance with the conditions of patentability, namely that the model was not “novel”. In substantiating violations against their rights and interests in the case, the plaintiff noted that they were the co-owner of another patent of Ukraine for a utility model whose validity was not recognised by the defendants.
According to the indictment, the plaintiff was notified of suspicion of illegal use of the defendants' utility model, committed by prior conspiracy by a group of persons. Within the framework of this criminal proceeding, a civil claim was filed against the plaintiff for the recovery of damages. According to the plaintiff, the existence of criminal prosecution and property claim directly indicates a causal relationship between the defendants' patent and the violation of the plaintiff’s civil rights and legitimate interests.
Court decisions
The Court of First Instance satisfied the claim on the basis of expert conclusions regarding the non-compliance of the defendants' patent with the "novelty" patentability condition.
The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Court of First Instance and made a new decision, dismissing the claim in full while noting that in the plaintiff did not prove which of their personal rights and interests were violated by the use of the contested patent when making their statement of claim. In reversing the decision of the Court of First Instance and dismissing the claim, the Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiff, in justifying their right to file claims due to the patent not meeting the "novelty" condition of patentability, did not indicate or substantiate their personal, direct interest in resolving the issue subject to the claim. The plaintiff therefore did not provide proper and admissible evidence that the defendants' patent prevents or makes it impossible for the plaintiff to carry out their activities, nor did such claim prove how the registration and operation of the contested patent created obstacles to such activities.
The Supreme Court fully agreed with the legal position of the Court of Appeal.
Legal opinions of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasised that the protection of civil rights and interests in court is possible only if the plaintiff’s rights or interests were genuinely violated, unrecognised, or otherwise challenged by the defendants.
Having evaluated the case materials in the context of the presence of the plaintiff's substantive interest, the panel of judges determined the following:
Private law norms define a limited range of grounds for refusing judicial protection of civil law and a person’s interests. These include, groundlessness on the part of the claims (absence of violated rights or legally protected interests on the part of the plaintiff, as established by the court); abuse of material rights; situations whereby the plaintiff chooses an improper means to protect such violated rights/interests; expiration of the statute of limitations.
- The plaintiff did not substantiate the connection between the purpose of its activity and the subject of the claim, did not indicate which of its interests are the subject of judicial protection, did not indicate the nature of the related violation of its rights and/or legitimate interests in connection with the presence of a patent registered by the defendants.
- In the statement of claim, the plaintiff did not indicate or substantiate their personal, direct interest in resolving the issue subject to the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove the connection between the purpose of his activity and the subject of the claim with proper and admissible evidence, nor did they indicate what interests are the subject of judicial protection or the violation of their rights and legitimate interests in connection with the presence of a patent as registered by the defendants.
- In the context of bringing the plaintiff to criminal responsibility and taking into account the circumstances of this particulate case, the establishment of certain circumstances in civil proceedings is not absolute evidence of the absence of criminal liability: civil and criminal proceedings differ in terms of standards of proof (i.e. the presence of indisputable evidence in criminal proceedings, compared to the balance of probabilities in civil proceedings), as well as the range of circumstances investigated. Bringing the plaintiff to criminal liability for illegal use of a utility model, committed through prior conspiracy by a group of persons to which the plaintiff belongs according to the indictment, without the appropriate permission on the part of persons under whom the disputed patent was registered earlier (i.e. the defendants) does not create preconditions for violating the plaintiff's rights. As such, these rights are therefore not subject to judicial protection. Such procedural behaviour on the part of the plaintiff does not indicate their attempts to obtain judicial protection, rather being aimed at establishing certain prejudicial facts in civil proceedings in order to seek potential protection from criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court confirmed that since the plaintiff did not properly prove and substantiate the existence of a directly violated right or legitimate interest in regard to the disputed legal relations, the claims were unfounded. This is an independent and sufficient ground for dismissal of the claim, regardless of whether the disputed patent meets the condition of "novelty".
KPMG Law Ukraine has a team of highly qualified specialists with extensive experience in advising and assisting clients on intellectual property matters, including:
- advising on the protection and registration of intellectual property rights
- diagnostics of the current state intellectual property protections
- developing internal policies/regulations and relevant supporting documents concerning intellectual property rights protections
- developing and analysing agreements concerning intellectual property matters, regulating intellectual property matters in contracts.
