Client:
Maksym Koichev
Matter: Opposition to the registration of a contested trademark similar to the Client’s brand
Team:
Anna Kravchuk, Oleksandra Soroka
Outcome: The Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations (UANIPIO) refused registration of the contested mark for all services covered by Class 35 of the Nice Classification, fully upholding the arguments presented in the opposition.
Project Overview

Brand protection does not always stop with a single trademark. When a sign has been used in business for many years, has become recognizable among consumers, and is additionally protected by a portfolio of registered trademarks, an attempt by a third party to register a similar sign can create multiple risks at once.

Our client has been operating under the “AGROMARKET” designation since 2013. The designation is used as a trade name for an online store offering gardening, household and home-related products. The client also owns a portfolio of “AGROMARKET” / “АГРОМАРКЕТ” trademarks, including registrations covering goods and services in Class 35 of the Nice Classification.

The issue arose when a third party filed application No. m202406104 for the combined mark “DAR AGROMARKET”, covering a broad range of services in Class 35.

What We Did

The Synergy team conducted a comprehensive analysis and prepared a substantiated opposition based on several interconnected grounds.

Our lawyers:

  • established the existence and recognition of the “AGROMARKET” trade name. We collected evidence of its use in Ukraine since 2013, including through domain names, the website, social media, physical stores and other consumer-facing channels;
  • analysed the similarity between the contested mark and the trade name based on phonetic, visual and conceptual criteria. We established that the verbal element “AGROMARKET” is incorporated in its entirety into the contested mark;
  • established the similarity between the contested mark and the Client’s portfolio of earlier registered and pending trademarks, in which “AGROMARKET” / “АГРОМАРКЕТ” constitutes the key element;
  • compared the Class 35 services covered by the contested application with the services in connection with which the Client’s trade name and trademarks are used, establishing their identity and similarity;
  • substantiated the risk of consumer confusion as to the commercial origin of the services and the possibility that consumers could mistakenly assume that the applicant was connected with AGROMARKET.

Thus, the opposition was aimed at providing comprehensive protection for the AGROMARKET brand, which had already acquired recognition in the market and was additionally protected by a portfolio of trademarks.

Outcome

UANIPIO fully upheld the arguments presented in the opposition. By its decision dated 7 August 2026, UANIPIO refused registration of the contested mark for all services covered by Class 35 of the Nice Classification.

UANIPIO found that the contested mark was sufficiently similar to the Client’s earlier trademarks registered in Ukraine to create a likelihood of confusion. The Office also took into account the circumstances surrounding the “AGROMARKET” trade name and the risk of misleading consumers.

As a result, the Client retained exclusive control over the use of the AGROMARKET brand in the relevant field of business.