About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making IP Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working at WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets Future of IP WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Women Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Youth Examiners Innovation Ecosystems Economics Finance Intangible Assets Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism Music Fashion PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center World Intangible Investment Highlights WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Tailored Initiatives & Projects Collaborative Forums & Dialogues Innovation, Creativity and Development Acceleration Program IP for Impact National IP Strategies Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Staff Positions Affiliated Personnel Positions Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Ukraine

UA008-j

Back

Decision of the Supreme Court case № 910/16093/18 of 06.05.2025

Case No. 910/16093/18

Plaintiff: KALCEKS, AS (Akciju sabiedrība “KALCEKS”)

Defendants: Pharmaceutical Group Zdorovia LLC; Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations; Farmeks Group LLC

Subject matter: invalidation of trademarks and obligation to take actions.

In case No. 910/16093/18, KALCEKS, AS filed a claim seeking full invalidation of two Ukrainian trademark certificates owned by Pharmaceutical Group Zdorovia LLC: Certificate No. [NUMBER_1] for the designation “ПРОМЕДОЛ-ЗН” (application dated 04.09.2009) and Certificate No. [NUMBER_3] for the designation “PROMEDOL ПРОМЕДОЛ” (application dated 02.11.2016). Both trademarks were registered for goods in Class 5 of the Nice Classification (pharmaceutical preparations, medicines, narcotics, etc.).

The plaintiff also requested that the Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations make the corresponding entries in the State Register of Certificates of Ukraine for Marks for Goods and Services and publish information about the invalidation of the certificates in the official bulletin “Promyslova Vlasnist”.

The claim was based on the argument that the disputed designations consist exclusively of signs that are commonly used as generic designations for certain types of goods. In particular, the word “Promedol” is a well-known name of a medicinal product that has long been used by various manufacturers and therefore lacks distinctiveness and cannot obtain legal protection under Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services”.

By decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv dated 08.04.2019 (and additional decision dated 14.05.2019 on the distribution of court costs), the claim was fully satisfied.

The Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, by its ruling dated 12.12.2022, overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim. The Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, by its ruling dated 16.05.2023, set aside that appellate decision and remitted the case for a new appellate review.

Following the new appellate review, the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal again overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim by its ruling dated 15.01.2025.

By its ruling dated 06.05.2025, the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court partially upheld the cassation appeal filed by KALCEKS, AS, set aside the ruling of the appellate court dated 15.01.2025, and left in force the decision and additional decision of the court of first instance.

The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the court of first instance that the designation “Promedol” constitutes a commonly used generic name of a medicinal product that has long been used by multiple manufacturers. Such a designation cannot be monopolized through trademark registration, even with additional elements such as “-ЗН”, since such elements do not confer distinctiveness.

The Court emphasized that the registration of such a designation does not perform the distinguishing function of a trademark and therefore falls under the absolute grounds for refusal of legal protection.

The Supreme Court also confirmed the correctness of the first-instance court’s assessment of the expert evidence and noted that the appellate court failed to provide proper reasoning for disregarding several expert opinions supporting the plaintiff’s position.