On 6 May 2026, the Supreme Court of Ukraine issued a significant ruling on trademark non-use, holding that a statutory prohibition on certain business activities cannot be considered a valid reason for failing to use a trademark where such prohibition already existed at the time the trademark was registered.
The decision reinforces the principle that trademark rights must be supported by genuine commercial use and should not be maintained solely to prevent other market participants from obtaining protection for similar signs.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from a lawsuit filed in August 2022 by Livescore Limited, a well-known provider of sports information and broadcasting services. The company sought the partial cancellation of a Ukrainian trademark registered in 2012 for various services in Class 41 of the Nice Classification.
According to the claimant, its international trademark application had obtained international registration through WIPO procedures in 2020. However, Ukrainian authorities subsequently issued a provisional refusal for certain Class 41 services because the applied-for mark was considered confusingly similar to the earlier Ukrainian registration.
As a result, Livescore obtained protection in Ukraine only for Classes 9, 35, and 38, while registration for Class 41 services was refused.
The company argued that the earlier trademark owner had not used the mark for the registered Class 41 services during the preceding five years and therefore the trademark protection should be terminated for those services.
Court Proceedings
On 29 January 2024, the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv granted the claim in full, finding that the trademark owner had failed to prove genuine use of the mark or provide sufficient justification for its non-use.
Subsequently, during appellate proceedings, the claimant withdrew part of its claims concerning certain Class 41 services. On 24 February 2025, the Kyiv Court of Appeal partially overturned the first-instance judgment regarding services related to casino operations and gambling activities.
The appellate court concluded that the trademark owner’s non-use was justified because gambling activities were prohibited under Ukrainian law for a significant period of time. According to the court, the legislative ban constituted a valid reason preventing the owner from using the trademark for casino and betting services.
Supreme Court’s Position
The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court’s reasoning.
The Court emphasized that the disputed trademark application had been filed in 2011, while Ukraine’s prohibition on gambling activities had already been in force since 2009 under the Law of Ukraine “On the Prohibition of Gambling Business in Ukraine”.
Therefore, the trademark owner was aware, or should have been aware, of the legal restrictions when seeking registration of the mark.
According to the Supreme Court, circumstances that were foreseeable and already existed at the time of registration cannot subsequently be relied upon as valid reasons for trademark non-use. Since the legal prohibition was already in force when the application was filed, it could not justify maintaining rights in a trademark that remained unused for years.
The Court also noted that the legislative ban on gambling was lifted following the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On State Regulation of Activities Related to the Organization and Conduct of Gambling”, which entered into force on 13 August 2020. Despite this change, the trademark owner still failed to demonstrate actual use of the mark.
As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the relevant part of the appellate decision and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court ordering the early termination of trademark protection.
Practical Implications
The ruling confirms the importance of the genuine-use requirement in Ukrainian trademark law.
The Supreme Court stressed that trademark registers should not contain unused registrations that unnecessarily restrict market access for other businesses. Trademark rights are intended to protect signs that are actively used in commercial activities rather than to reserve market positions indefinitely.
The decision may be particularly relevant for trademark owners maintaining registrations for services that have never been commercialized, as well as for businesses seeking to challenge dormant trademark rights that block new registrations.