The Supreme Court of Ukraine has clarified the legal requirements for the early termination of a trademark registration on the grounds of non-use. The conclusions were set out in its judgment of 6 May 2026 in case No. 757/39111/24, concerning a composite trademark registered for services in Classes 35 and 45 of the Nice Classification.
The claimant sought the termination of the trademark registration, arguing that the mark had not been used in Ukraine for more than five consecutive years. The existence of the earlier registration also created an obstacle to the registration of several trademark applications filed by the claimant. The courts of first instance and appeal granted the claim, and the Supreme Court dismissed the trademark proprietor’s cassation appeal.
The Supreme Court confirmed that a trademark registration may be terminated if the mark has not been genuinely used in Ukraine for an uninterrupted period of five years without valid reasons. This period begins on the date of publication of the registration or, in the case of an international registration, on the date on which legal protection is granted in Ukraine. A change of ownership or a transfer of the right to use the trademark does not restart the five-year period.
The burden of proving genuine use of the trademark, or the existence of valid reasons for its non-use, rests with the proprietor. The evidence must demonstrate actual use of the mark in relation to the specific goods or services for which it is registered. Formal or preparatory activities that do not confirm the genuine commercial offering of the relevant goods or services are insufficient.
Evidence of Genuine Trademark Use
The Court emphasized that the registration of a domain name alone does not constitute proof of trademark use. The proprietor must demonstrate that the corresponding website was operational, that the protected goods or services were actually offered through it, and that the trademark was used in connection with those commercial activities.
Commercial proposals, correspondence and documents issued by related companies were also found insufficient because they did not establish that the registered services had actually been provided under the disputed trademark. Evidence relating to the activities of other legal entities must clearly confirm that they used the mark with the proprietor’s authorization and in relation to the relevant goods or services.
The Supreme Court further clarified that military hostilities, occupation and other force majeure circumstances may constitute valid reasons for non-use. However, such circumstances do not automatically release the proprietor from the obligation to use the trademark. A general confirmation of force majeure is insufficient unless the proprietor establishes a direct causal connection between those circumstances and the inability to use the specific trademark.
The judgment demonstrates the importance of maintaining comprehensive records of trademark use, including agreements, invoices, advertising materials, website records, commercial correspondence and documents confirming the actual provision of goods or services. Such evidence may be decisive in proceedings concerning the termination of trademark protection due to non-use.