On September 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of Ukraine, sitting as a panel of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 344/1415/22, dismissed the cassation appeal of an author who challenged the award of lower compensation for infringement of his economic copyright than he had sought.
The claimant published a graphic image he had created himself on Facebook and on the Dribbble platform under his pseudonym. He later discovered the image on souvenir magnets sold in a store of the defendant company. Authorship was not indicated on the product, and one magnet cost 25 UAH. The company did not satisfy the author’s pre-trial claim, so he filed a lawsuit seeking 65,000 UAH (apr. 1 426 USD) in compensation, equal to ten minimum wages, and an order obliging the defendant to take certain actions.
The lower courts partially granted the claim. They recovered 6,000 UAH (apr. 132 USD) in compensation from the company and obliged it to publish on its website information about the infringement of intellectual property rights and the content of the court decision. In the cassation appeal, the author’s representative argued that the courts had determined the amount formally, had not substantiated it and had not taken into account the intentional nature of the infringement, its duration and the commercial use of the image.
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts and drew attention to the change in the rules for calculating compensation. The claimant discovered the infringement in May 2021 but calculated the compensation under the old version of the Law of Ukraine “On Copyright and Related Rights” No. 3792-XII, which was in force until July 22, 2018 and allowed the recovery of between 10 and 50,000 minimum wages. From July 22, 2018, Law No. 2415-VIII amended item “g” of Part 2 of Article 52 of Law No. 3792-XII, and compensation is no longer linked to the amount of the minimum wage.
The Court also explained how to determine the specific amount of compensation paid instead of damages or recovery of income. Within the limits established by law, the court must take into account the scope of the infringement and/or the defendant’s intentions. The Supreme Court identified the circumstances to be assessed when calculating an adequate amount: the nature of the infringement, namely the fact and type of infringement of economic rights; its scale, including the duration, volume (single or multiple use) and number of injured parties; financial factors, namely the approximate harm caused by each use and the income received by the infringer; the defendant’s intentions; and the possibility of, and effort required for, restoring the previous position.
Since the claimant did not provide evidence supporting the claimed amount of compensation or evidence of the defendant’s intent, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
The ruling is of practical importance for rights holders. Even where the fact of infringement is proven, the amount of compensation is not fixed and depends on the evidence submitted by the claimant. Therefore, when going to court, authors and rights holders should document the extent of use of the work, the duration of the infringement, the infringer’s income and the circumstances indicating intent.