“INFORMATION_2”
摘要
The recognition of a trademark as well known by the Appeals Chamber or a court is not a method of acquiring rights to a trademark. Such recognition carries different legal implications. The consideration of application for recognizing a trademark as well known in Ukraine by the Appeals Chamber is not aimed at protecting the rights of the trademark owner from violations by another party. Instead, such a decision serves as a tool for safeguarding the rights of the owner of a well-known trademark and is not a method of acquiring rights to a trademark. Therefore, the recognition of a trademark as well known is not an independent method of protection but rather a condition for granting protection to a party, specifically through invalidating a registration (certificate). Article 494 Civil Code regulates the certification of the acquisition of intellectual property rights to a trademark, not the acquisition of such rights itself. The provision of the third paragraph of said Article, stating that the acquisition of intellectual property rights to a trademark recognized as well known under the procedure established by law does not require certification, should not be understood to mean that the recognition of a trademark as well known constitutes a means of acquiring economic rights to that trademark. Recognition of a trademark as well known by a court in claim-based proceedings has an inter partes effect, meaning it applies only to the parties to the dispute. The inclusion of information about a well-known trademark on the NIPA’s list, which is informational by law, has no legal significance for legal relations concerning trademark rights. In the absence of bad faith in the registration of a trademark by another person, a claim by the owner of a well-known mark to cancel (invalidate) the certificate (registration) of that person’s trademark may be granted within the general limitation period, which must not be less than five years from the date of the mark’s registration.