Theory and practice of intellectual property
№ 2 / 2025
ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744
PDF (Ukrainian)DOI: https://doi.org/10.33731/22025.332479
Submitted 2025-05-05
Accepted 2025-05-24
Published 2025-06-16
Some issues of improving the legal protection of trademarks
Nataliya Myronenko
Doctor of Legal Sciences/Dr. Habil. (Law), Professor,
Advisor to the Directorate of the Intellectual Property Scientific Research Institute
of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Ukraine
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0220-988X
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of issues of early termination of the trademark certificate and the procedure of trademark registration under the legislation of Ukraine and EU. The degree of consistency of Ukrainian legislation’s provisions in the legal protection of trademarks with EU legislation was determined. It is concluded that European legislation at the regional level, like the legislation of Ukraine, provides for a “conditional” grace period for the restoration of the use of the trademark. At the same time, the wording of the provision is evaluative and does not correspond to the principle of legal certainty.
The use of the legal positions of the EU Court in disputes on the cancellation of trademark registration under the legislation of the EU Member States made it possible to identify the problems of applying such legislation and the legal consequences of considering such cases. According to the EU Court, the trademark owner, deprived of rights due to improper use of the trademark, retains the right to demand compensation for damage caused by the use of a similar trademark by a third party before the effective date of the cancellation of the trademark registration. It was concluded that the practical implementation of this right may be associated with difficulties due to non-use of the trademark for five years. Proposals were made regarding the expansion of the powers of the Ukrainian National Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation (UANIPIO) in terms of decision-making on the termination of the trademark certificate, changing the judicial procedure for solving this issue to an administrative one. It is proposed that the term to consider the validity of the certificate terminated is the date of entry of relevant information into the State Register of Certificates of Ukraine for trademarks. Since Ukrainian legislation lacks a provision on an “opposition period” during which an interested individual or legal entity can file an objection to the registration of a trademark, there is the need to improve the procedure for registering trademarks in Ukraine foreseeing the “opposition” period as an obligation.
Keywords: intellectual property, trademark, certificate, NIPO powers
References
Цивільний кодекс України від 16 січня 2003 року № 435-IV. Відомості Верховної Ради України. 2003. №№ 40−44. Ст. 356.
Про охорону прав на знаки для товарів і послуг : Закон України від 15 грудня 1993 року № 3689-XII. Відомості Верховної Ради України. 1994. № 7. Ст. 36.
Угода про асоціацію між Україною, з однієї сторони, та Європейським Союзом, Європейським співтовариством з атомної енергії і їхніми державами-членами, з іншої сторони. Офіційний вісник України. 2014. № 75. Т. 1. С. 83. Ст. 2125.
Directive (EU) No. 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.
https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15947
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark.
https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/ en/legislation/ details/18298
Постанова Великої Палати Верховного Суду від 05 березня 2025 року. Справа № 910/8781/23.
https://zakononline.ua/court-decisions/show/126153470?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=zo_digest_vidstup_660&utm_term=09/04/25_1&utm_content=link_910/8781/23
Cour d’appel de Paris, P. 5, ch. 2, 30 juin 2023. Сase № 21/08131.
https://www.dalloz.fr/documentation/Document?id=CA_PARIS_2023-06-30_2113981
Сode of intellectual property of France.
https://wipolex-res.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/fr/fr/fr465fr.pdf
CJEU, 5th ch., March 26, 2020. Сase № C-622/18.
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=224732&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=728488
Com., September 26, 2018, Сase № 16-28.281.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ juri/id/JURITEXT000037474111
Рішення господарського суду м. Києва від 30.04.2024 р. Справа № 910/8781/23.
https://youcontrol.com.ua/ru/catalog/court-document/119705614/
Рішення господарського суду м. Києва від 30.01.2025 р. Справа № 910/5510/24.
https://youcontrol.com.ua/ru/catalog/court-document/125138192/
Act of June 30, 2000, on Industrial Property (amended up to Act of March 9, 2023), Poland.
https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/22308
Industrial Property Code (Legislative Decree No. 30 of February 10, 2005, as amended up to Law No. 102 of July 24, 2023), Italy.
https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/ legislation/details/22344
Industrial Property Code (approved by Decree-Law No. 110/2018 of December 10, 2018, and amended by Decree-Law No. 9/2021 of January 29, 2021), Portugal.
https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21381