Under Section 18(4) of the Ukrainian Law No. 3689-XII on Protection of Rights to Trademarks for Goods and Services, December 15, 1993, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Law), Ukrainian courts cannot revoke a trademark registration if the defendant demonstrates valid grounds for excusable non-use. The Trademark Law emphasizes that such grounds must be beyond the owner’s control and identifies only one valid ground: limitations on importation or other regulatory obstacles affecting the availability of the covered goods and services.

In a recent Feature article (INTA Bulletin, February 24, 2026), the author addressed two Supreme Court rulings. This article provides an update on developments from both cases. In the first case, the author reported that the non-use of the mark in Class 41 (casino services; services related to games for money) was excused due to a statutory ban under the Law on the Prohibition of Gambling Business in Ukraine (Kyiv Court of Appeal, Case No. 757/20684/22-ц, Feb. 24, 2025), which was in force from 2009 to 2020.

The plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower courts, clarifying that because casino and gambling activities in Ukraine were prohibited at the time of registration, and the defendant was aware of this, the legislative prohibition could not be considered a valid reason for non-use of the trademark, given that such restrictions were foreseeable at the time of registration of the disputed trademark.

In addition, the court noted that the prohibition on gambling was abolished on August 13, 2020, and since then, the defendant has not exercised its right to use the trademark (Supreme Court, Case No. 757/20684/22-ц, May 6, 2026).

Force Majeure

In another case, where the defendant argued excusable non-use of his mark due to the full-scale invasion and occupation of the port city of Mariupol, the Supreme Court reviewed the owner’s inability to use the trademark in the temporarily occupied territories and confirmed that this does not automatically exempt the trademark owner from the requirement to demonstrate valid grounds for non-use (Supreme Court, Case No. 757/39111/24-ц, May 6, 2026).

The court also clarified that proving trademark use, including online, requires not only displaying the mark in a domain name or on a website, but also offering on such a website the services for which the disputed trademark is registered.

It is important to emphasize the umbrella principle of genuine trademark use that the Supreme Court has relied on in both cases. According to the court, this principle: (1) allows the Trademark Register to be cleared of unused trademarks; (2) promotes the right to a trademark that is genuinely used in economic activities; and (3) prohibits legal protection for trademarks used merely to restrict the activities of other entities.

Considering all of the above, further decisions unfavorable to owners of unused registered marks on excusable non-use in Ukraine are to be expected going forward.

First published on the INTA Bulletin website on 15 September 2026.