LEGAL PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS IN UKRAINE IN THE CONTEXT OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION: CURRENT STATE AND PROSPECTS

Resumen

The study examines the ongoing reform of the Ukrainian trademark protection system in the context of the country’s accelerated integration into the European Union (EU). The recent presentation of the draft Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Trademarks” has created an urgent need for a comprehensive and critical analysis of the most significant proposed changes to the national trademark framework, particularly in terms of their feasibility, institutional readiness, and potential risks for future law enforcement and legal certainty. The reform package introduces a number of fundamental changes, most notably the shift toward a trademark examination procedure modeled on the EU system, including the elimination of examination on relative grounds, the introduction of strict procedural timeframes, and the transfer of responsibility for monitoring conflicting rights from the national intellectual property office (UANIPIO) to trademark owners. In addition, the draft law proposes a complete overhaul of the mechanism for recognizing trademarks as well-known in Ukraine, replacing the existing administrative procedure with a new, less clearly defined model. While these changes are formally justified by the objective of harmonizing Ukrainian legislation with EU law, the study demonstrates that the full replication of the EUIPO framework is neither strictly required by relevant EU Regulations and Directives nor necessarily appropriate given Ukraine’s historical, legal, and institutional context. The comparative analysis indicates that EU Member States themselves apply diverse approaches, suggesting that a more flexible and adaptive model could better serve Ukraine’s needs. It is argued that the proposed elimination of examination on relative grounds and the reliance on opposition-based mechanisms may lead to a significant increase in conflicting trademark registrations, thereby shifting the burden of rights protection onto applicants and proprietors. This, in turn, is likely to generate additional litigation, increase enforcement costs, and disproportionately affect smaller rights holders who may lack the resources for continuous trademark monitoring. At the same time, the UANIPIO may face considerable operational challenges in implementing rigid statutory deadlines and managing a growing volume of oppositions and related administrative procedures. Particular attention is paid to the reform of the well-known trademark recognition system. Although the intention to align with European practices appears justified, the abrupt abandonment of the existing structured administrative pathway without a sufficiently clear and predictable alternative may undermine legal certainty and weaken the level of protection currently afforded to trademark proprietors. The transition to any new model must therefore carefully safeguard previously acquired rights and ensure continuity in both national and cross-border enforcement. The study concludes that, despite the declared objective of harmonization, the proposed reforms risk introducing additional procedural complexity, legal uncertainty, and financial burdens rather than improving the efficiency of the trademark system. A more balanced and context-sensitive legislative approach is required – one that takes into account national institutional capacity, preserves effective elements of the current system, and incorporates EU standards in a flexible and pragmatic manner. Without such adjustments and adequate procedural safeguards, the reform may ultimately have a counterproductive effect on the development of Ukraine’s trademark protection system.