关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 知识产权合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 在产权组织任职 问责制 专利 商标 外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 知识产权的未来 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 妇女 高校 土著人民 司法机构 青年 审查员 创新生态系统 经济学 金融 无形资产 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 音乐 时尚 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 全球无形资产投资精要 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 定制化倡议与项目 合作论坛与对话 创新、创意和发展加速计划 知识产权影响力 国家知识产权战略 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 工作人员职位 附属人员职位 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

乌克兰

UA008-j

返回

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.