On August 6, 2026, the Supreme Court of Ukraine has upheld the lower courts’ decisions in a trademark infringement dispute between LEGO Holding A/S and several entrepreneurs from the Odesa region concerning the sale of counterfeit construction sets. LEGO initiated the proceedings after discovering products offered through Ukrainian online stores whose packaging contained signs confusingly similar to trademarks owned by the company.
Test purchases were conducted in 2024 as part of the evidence-gathering process. The defendants included three individual entrepreneurs and LLC “Trade Company Union Group”. LEGO sought an injunction against further use of the disputed signs, removal and destruction of the infringing products, and recovery of income obtained from the unlawful activity. On January 21, 2026, the court of first instance granted LEGO’s claims in full.
The court ordered the defendants to cease the infringing use, withdraw and destroy the relevant products, and pay UAH 7,225 representing income obtained from the infringement. The proceedings concerned infringement of LEGO’s rights in trademarks protected in Ukraine. The case subsequently developed into a separate dispute over the amount of legal costs that the successful rights holder could recover from the infringers.
Following its victory on the merits, LEGO requested reimbursement of EUR 110,057.50 in legal expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings. The company relied on its legal services agreement with Ukrainian law firm and a series of invoices issued between August 2024 and January 2026. An additional agreement provided for a fee of EUR 100,000 for legal assistance before the court of first instance and EUR 5,000 for work concerning procedural matters at the appellate stage.
LEGO argued that the amount reflected the complexity and duration of the proceedings and the significant volume of procedural work performed by its lawyers. The defendants objected, maintaining that the requested costs were disproportionate to the complexity of the dispute, the work actually performed and the financial significance of the case. The court agreed that only part of the claimed amount could reasonably be shifted to the defendants.
The court reduced the recoverable legal costs to EUR 1,024, equivalent at that time to UAH 52,000. It also awarded LEGO UAH 52,252.35 in expenses associated with obtaining expert evidence. The amounts were divided between the four defendants. In reaching its decision, the court emphasized that recoverable lawyers’ fees must be real, necessary, documented and reasonable in light of the complexity of the case, the amount in dispute and the significance of the proceedings for the parties.
LEGO challenged the reduction of its recoverable legal costs, but the issue ultimately reached the Supreme Court without changing the result. The Supreme Court dismissed LEGO’s cassation appeal. The ruling confirms that a successful party is not automatically entitled to recover the full amount it agreed to pay its lawyers.
Ukrainian commercial courts may assess separately whether the costs sought from the opposing party satisfy the statutory requirements of proportionality and reasonableness. The existence of a valid legal services agreement and evidence that fees have actually been incurred therefore does not necessarily determine the amount recoverable from an infringer. At the same time, the relatively small amount of income recovered from the defendants did not prevent LEGO from obtaining substantive remedies for trademark infringement.
The defendants were prohibited from continuing the unlawful use of the signs, while the infringing products became subject to withdrawal and destruction. From an intellectual property enforcement perspective, the case demonstrates that litigation may pursue objectives extending beyond direct monetary compensation, including removal of counterfeit goods from the market and prevention of further unauthorized use of protected brands.
It also illustrates the importance of distinguishing between the commercial cost of an enforcement campaign and the portion of that cost that a court may order an infringer to reimburse. The Supreme Court’s decision therefore provides useful guidance both for trademark owners planning enforcement proceedings in Ukraine and for parties seeking reimbursement of substantial professional legal expenses in IP disputes.