- News
- #standwithUkraine New
- Recovery Talks New
- Expert Opinion
(empowered by the UJBL) New - Interviews
- Editor's Preface
- League Tables
- Ukrainian Legal Market
-
Practice Areas and Industries Review
- AI Regulation
- Anti-Corruption
- Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy
- Antitrust
- Asset Tracing
- Banking & Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Bilateral Investment Treaties
- Business Protection
- Construction and Development
- Criminal Process
- Economic Development
- Energy
- Financial Restructuring
- Financial Services
- Government Relations
- Green Recovery
- Industrial Parks
- Insolvency Disputes
- International Arbitration
- International Tax
- Investigations
- Investment
- IT Law
- Labor & Employment
- Litigation
- Marine Insurance
- Maritime and Shipping
- Mergers & Acquisitons
- Natural Resources
- Non-Governmental Organisations
- Patents
- Private Claims
- Real Estate
- Role of Experts in International Arbitration
- State Enterprises
- Tax
- Technology Disputes
- Third-Party Funding
- Trade Remedies
- Trademarks
- Transfer Pricing
- Unfair Competition
- Urban Planning
- White-Collar Crime
-
Who Is Who Rankings
- Agribusiness
- Antitrust and Competition
- Banking & Finance, Capital Markets, Debt Restructuring, Fintech
- Bankruptcy
- Corporate and M&A
- Criminal Law (including White-Collar Crime, Anticorruption, War and Military Crimes)
- Energy & Natural Resources
- Family Law
- Infrastructure
- Intellectual Property
- International Arbitration
- International Trade: Trade Remedies and Regulatory Compliance, Commodities, Cross-Border Contracts and Customs
- IT and Telecommunications
- Labor and Employment
- Litigation: Domestic and Cross-Border
- Military Law and the Defense Industry
- Pharmaceuticals & Healthcare
- Real Estate, Construction, Land
- Tax and Transfer Pricing
- Transport: Aviation, Maritime & Shipping
- Law Firms Profiles
- Lawyers Profiles
- Archive
Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Ukraine – on the Way to the EU
Ukraine plans to become a member of the EU in the coming years, and this goal requires stepping up efforts by all of society aimed at implementing relevant reforms, particularly reforms to intellectual property (IP). After Russia’s war on Ukraine has ended, investors will definitely come to Ukraine to rebuild the country and its economy together with the Ukrainian people, and they must be confident that their rights will be well protected and to make it possible, favorable investment environment must be established.
IP rights are essentially private rights, which means that their enforcement requires an pro-active approach on the part of a rights holder. However, an ultimate outcome of the IP rights enforcement efforts is in the interests and for the safety of the entire society. Rights holders have up-to-date information on IP rights and their infringements, while customs and law-enforcement agencies have the authority to enforce such rights.
Crimes that involve IPR infringements not only pose a threat to the health and safety of consumers, cause economic losses to states and right holders, but also represent lucrative source of income for organized criminal networks. Therefore, it’s important to recognize IP crimes as a priority in the context of combating organized crime and to coordinate the interaction of customs and law-enforcement agencies in the fight against this criminal threat.
A common objective of all market participants is to block distribution channels of counterfeits from production facilities to consumers with the lowest administrative costs.
The main objective of rights holders is to remove counterfeit products from the market and ensure their destruction.
A comprehensive approach to the enforcement of IP rights is based on the exchange of information, cooperation, partnership and trust between rights holders, customs and law-enforcement agencies.
Part I. Interaction between the Customs Service and Rights Holders
The State Customs Service of Ukraine is one of the government agencies involved in preventing infringements of intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to international trade, within the powers defined by Ukrainian legislation.
The function of the customs authorities is to create favorable environment for the development of foreign economic activity, to ensure public safety, and to protect the customs interests of Ukraine. Assisting in the enforcement of IP rights, taking measures to prevent the movement of goods in violation of legitimate IP rights across the customs border of Ukraine, preventing the movement of counterfeit goods across the customs border of Ukraine are the main security objectives of customs authorities.
Customs are entitled to apply measures to assist in IPR enforcement either based on the data of the Customs Register, or on their own initiative (ex officio) (if an IPR item is not included in the Customs Register, but is protected in Ukraine). A risk analysis system is used for this purpose.
In Ukraine, the Customs Register is an information database of IP rights (trademarks, industrial designs, items subject to copyright and related rights, inventions, geographical indications, plant varieties, topographies of semiconductor products), their owners or representatives in Ukraine, and distinguishing features of protected products The Customs Register is available to rights holders and customs officers. Rights holders can include IPR items in the register, introduce changes, suspend or cancel registrations online.
Also, the information resources of the State Customs Service permit viewing the part of the information of the Customs Register which is open to the public, namely the List of IPR items (https://cabinet.customs.gov.ua/ipr/reg/overview). This is a list of IPR items entered in the Customs Register. It does not contain closed information and is available to all citizens.
When the Customs Service detects goods suspected of infringing IPR during their transportation across the customs border, their customs clearance is suspended. Once a decision on suspension has been made, the customs office notifies a rights holder of this, and also informs a declarant of the reasons for suspension and of a rights holder’s name and address. A notification sent to a right holder shall specify: the customs clearance of which goods have been suspended, their quantity, the reasons and period of suspension, the name and address of an owner of goods, as well as other necessary information. The next actions shall be determined and carried out by a rights holder.
If the Customs Service suspends clearance, the rights holder can initiate one of three proceedings:
- Destruction of counterfeit goods. In case of suspension of customs clearance of goods suspected of infringement of IPR during their transportation across the customs border of Ukraine, such goods can be destroyed under customs control without the necessity to establish any infringement of IPRs. Such destruction is possible under the following conditions: the rights holder informs the customs in writing that there are features of infringement of his IPR and that he intends to apply the procedure of destruction of such goods; and the declarant submits to the customs the consent of the owner of such goods to their destruction or he does not submit any objection by the owner of such goods to their destruction (tacit consent). In case of actual destruction of goods, where customs clearance has been suspended based on suspicion of infringement of IPR, the owner of such goods shall be released from administrative responsibility.
- Civil proceedings. A civil lawsuit is filed against the owner of the infringing goods. Here the burden of proof is borne by the rights holder.
- Administrative proceedings. These are initiated by the Customs Service. The burden of proof is borne by the Customs Service and the rights holder. The action is initiated by the Customs Service based on an opinion from a competent expert body confirming that the detained goods infringe IPRs. In this case the detained goods are subject to confiscation.
All costs associated with the preservation and destruction of counterfeit goods are paid by the rights holder.
According to rights holders, effective suspensions of customs clearance of counterfeit goods are those that end up with their destruction, drawing up an administrative protocol or a commercial lawsuit with mandatory destruction of seized counterfeit products.
The Department of Non-Tariff Regulation of the State Customs Service and specialized IPR border enforcement assistance units (or officials) are the relevant units within the State Customs Service that assist right holders to enforce their IP rights.
The procedure for detention of counterfeit goods at the customs border with their further destruction, as prescribed in legislation, is effective and is actively carried out by regional customs offices.
Results achieved at the customs border
According to the annual reports of the State Customs Service of Ukraine, the number of suspensions of customs clearance of goods suspected of IPR infringements has been increasing:
-for 2021, the customs authorities issued 406 decisions on suspension of customs clearance of goods suspected of infringement of IP rights;
-for 2022 issued 300 decisions;
-for 2023 issued 347 decisions.
Unfortunately, neither in its annual reports nor on the web portal does the State Customs Service of Ukraine provide relevant statistical information, with breakdown on a yearly basis, on the number of detained, destroyed and relabeled counterfeit goods, in particular by categories of counterfeit goods, and information on the results of customs offense proceedings related to the transportation of goods across the customs border of Ukraine involving infringement of IPRs and destructions that took place under the control of the State Executive Service of Ukraine as a result of such proceedings.
Therefore, in order to have a general idea of the number of counterfeit goods in effective suspensions, we will refer to the statistical data of the Pakharenko and Partners IP and Law Firm regarding suspensions which were carried out by Customs for the past 3 years in the interests of the companies represented by Pakharenko and Partners.
Pakharenko & Partners’ practice
IP and Law Firm Pakharenko and Partners represents the interests of 66 companies I total (owners of global brands) in the enforcement of intellectual property rights, with the total number of IPR objects being 234. Of that number, 124 IPR objects owned by 31 rights holders are included in the Customs Register of IP Rights, and 110 IPR objects owned by 35 rights holders are protected at the initiative of a customs authority based on the information provided by right holders to the Customs Service.
During the period of 3 years, the customs authorities suspended customs clearance of counterfeit goods in the interests of 15 clients of Pakharenko and Partners, which ended up with their destruction, drawing up of an administrative protocol or commercial proceedings (effective suspensions), namely:
2021 — 65 effective suspensions, 28,207 pcs. destroyed.
2022 — 102 effective suspensions, 59,238 pcs. destroyed.
2023 — 155 effective suspensions, 57,253 pcs. destroyed.
Among the destroyed goods, there were: smartphone cases, smart watches, wired and wireless headphones, mobile phones, bands, batteries, USB Lightning cables, sneakers, backpacks, clothing and accessories. The vast majority of effective suspensions were carried out in respect of mobile devices and their accessories.
It is worth mentioning that since the number of counterfeit goods per each suspension was mostly small and the procedure for organizing the destruction requires executing a declaration with a significant package of relevant documents it is, therefore, advisable for a rights holder to accumulate counterfeit goods and carry out destruction once a quarter (or once every six months) in the area of activity of a certain customs office depending on the quantity and type of goods, just like Pakharenko and Partners does in the interests of its clients.
Legislation
In the period of 2020-2023, the Ukraine Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy was actively involved in developing practical recommendations for improving the situation with the current state of border measures in the context of enforcement of intellectual property rights at the Ukrainian customs. One of the achievements attained was the approval on 4 March 2023 by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of the State Anti-Corruption Program for 2023-2025 (SACP) to implement the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 aimed at reducing the level of corruption and ensuring integrity. The program determined as one of its priorities resolving the issue of a large number of IPR infringements during the importation of goods, and insufficient digitization and automation of the operations of customs authorities.
To resolve these problems, in 2/Appendix 2 to the SACP, among the Measures for the implementation of the State Anti-corruption Program for 2023-2025, the following measure is envisaged:
“2.3.1.2.1. Developing a draft law on amendments to the Customs Code of Ukraine, which will provide for:
1) determining the sufficiency of a rights holder’s report to confirm an infringement of IP rights and to draw up a protocol on the violation of customs rules related to the movement of goods across the customs border of Ukraine with infringement of IP rights;
2) widespread application of measures to assist in enforcement of IP rights in cases of detection of goods suspected of infringement IP rights and transported without customs control, with concealment from customs control, by way of non-declaration, etc.;
3) strengthening administrative responsibility for the transportation of goods across the customs border of Ukraine in violation of IP rights;
4) inclusion of a right holder in the list of persons who can participate in proceedings in cases regarding violation of customs rules under Art. 476 of the Customs Code of Ukraine”.
The enactment of legislative norms to implement the above-mentioned clauses 1, 2, 4 is provided for in the draft law No. 10411, and the enactment of the legislative norms to implement the clause 3 is provided for in the Draft Law No. 10257, which are currently under consideration in the Verkhovna Rada.
The results of measures undertaken by customs over the past 3 years:
- An increase in the number of cases or incidents of detection of counterfeit goods.
- Only a small number of types of goods are detained and only of a few rights holders.
- Each case of suspension mostly involves a small quantity of products.
- The urgency of simplifying and speeding up the procedures for storing and destroying counterfeit goods, which are subject to payment by a right holder, is growing.
Possible steps to strengthen enforcement at the customs border:
- Ensuring a real precedence of the safeguarding function of Customs over its fiscal function (ensuring that the main objective of the Customs Service is not collecting customs payments, but performing the function of “cargo police”, as is the case in the EU).
- Updating a risk management system — action on all types of goods and IPR items entered in the customs register and all violators of customs rules.
- Involvement of all working customs offices in the work.
- Total digitalization and transparency of the operation process of customs authorities, inter alia, through the creation of a software and information complex provided for by the law with the aim of automating the activities of customs authorities (suspensions), and recording their actions when interacting with rights holders, declarants, and owners of goods.
- Detentions of large-scale consignments of counterfeit goods and mandatory legal consequences – counterfeit goods destroyed or drawing up of a customs offense protocol.
- In order to reduce storage time and rights holders’ costs, the procedure for destroying counterfeit goods should be defined as a priority measure, and the rules/procedures for destroying counterfeits and storing seized goods should be simplified accordingly.
Part II. Interaction between Rights Holders and Law-Enforcement Agencies
According to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, crimes involving infringement of IP rights include: infringement of copyright and related rights (Article 176); infringement of rights to an invention, utility model, industrial design, topography of an integrated microcircuit, plant variety, rationalization proposal (Article 177); illegal use of a mark for goods and services, company name, qualified indication of the origin of the goods (Article 229).
Law-enforcement agencies involved in enforcement of IP rights include the following:
Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine
The Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (ESBU) was launched on 24 November 2021,.
The main objectives of the ESBU are to detect, stop, and investigate criminal offenses that infringe on the functioning of the state economy and offenses related to the receipt and use of international technical assistance.
The law-enforcement function is carried out by detective units established and operating within the structure of the Central Office and Territorial Departments of the ESBU.
The detectives of the ESB are authorized within the powers defined by the Law of Ukraine On Operational and Investigative Activity and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, to conduct operational and investigative activities and the pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses referred by law to the jurisdiction of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine.
Under Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, detectives of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine conduct pre-trial investigations of criminal offenses under the Article 229 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine Unlawful use of a trademark, trade name, qualified indication of the origin of goods.
National Police of Ukraine
The objectives of the National Police of Ukraine (NPU) include: 1) ensuring public safety and order; 2) protection of human rights and freedoms, as well as public and state interests; 3) combating crimes; 4) provision, within the limits defined by law, of assistance services to persons who, for personal, economic, social reasons or as a result of emergency situations, need such assistance.
Within the framework of combating crimes, the NPU continues investigation of criminal offenses in the area of economic activity under Art. 229 of the Criminal Code on Illegal use of a mark for goods and services, a company name, a qualified indication of the origin of goods.
The system of prosecutor’s offices under the leadership of the Prosecutor General’s Office
In accordance with Article 131-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine (as amended by Law of Ukraine No. 1401-VIII dated 2 June 2016), there is a prosecutor’s office in Ukraine, whose responsibilities cover:
1) supporting public prosecution in court;
2) organization and procedural guidance of pre-trial investigations, resolution of other issues in accordance with the law during criminal proceedings, supervision of covert and other investigative and search actions carried out by law-enforcement agencies;
3) representation of the state’s interests in court in exceptional cases and in the manner specified by law.
The system of prosecutor’s offices provides procedural guidance for the investigation of criminal cases related to IPR infringements by the NP and ESB. In particular, the ESB or NP applies to the prosecutor’s office for issuance of a resolution on determining jurisdiction in certain proceedings.
Criminal prosecution
Under the Criminal Code, an IP rights infringement constitutes a crime if it has caused considerable damage. Criminal proceedings can be initiated where a specific threshold of damages is met. The amount of damage (considerable, extensive or particularly extensive) determines the penalties imposed on infringers.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code, IP rights infringement cases qualify as private prosecutions and can be initiated only based on an application from a rights holder or its legal representative in Ukraine that has information on the criminal offence, or by the victim of a crime committed through infringing activities.
Investigators of the National Police of Ukraine and detectives of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine cannot act ex officio in cases involving trademark infringement. However, the police can carry out raids based on a complaint from the rights holder’s and documents collected during the pre-trial investigation. In order to conduct a raid or specific investigative action, an order must be issued by the court.
Thus, evidence can be secured only through the NPU and the ESBU. A criminal prosecution involves the following steps:
- The rights holder files an application for trademark infringement with the NPU or the ESBU to register the case in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (the Criminal Procedure Code provides that such a registration must take place within 24 hours of submission of an application) in order to initiate criminal proceedings and a pre-trial investigation.
- The NPU or the ESBU interview the rights holder’s representative to ensure that it provides relevant information on the infringement.
- Detectives of the ESBU or police officers make repeat (controlled) purchases in order to establish the facts of the sales. Further (or simultaneous) action is taken to locate manufacturing facilities, warehouses and offices, which may then be searched by the police.
- The ESBU or police secure a court order in order to search the relevant premises and seize counterfeit goods, materials, equipment and relevant financial and other documents.
- Once the relevant evidence (including information about the quantity of counterfeits) has been secured, the rights holder files an application with an investigator for trademark infringement, including a damages calculation.
- The court orders an expert to establish the amount of damages and unauthorised use of trademark.
- The rights holder submits a civil claim for damages (based on the expert’s report).
- The NPU or the ESBU interview witnesses and other parties related to the criminal proceedings.
- The NPU or the ESBU issue a notice of suspicion and an indictment.
- The criminal records are disclosed by an investigator to the parties, which then familiarise themselves with the materials of the finalised pre-trial investigation and sign the respective procedural document.
- The case is transferred to the court and the trial takes place.
- The verdict is issued and executed (eg, payment of a fine to the state revenue, destruction of counterfeit goods, compensation for damages).
There are no specialized courts. Cases are heard by courts of general jurisdiction.
Results achieved
As shown by the statistical data of Form No. 1 of the Prosecutor General’s Office, compared to 2022, in 2023 the ESBU actively joined the fight against counterfeiting, which enabled an increase in the number of such cases and contributed to a more successful fight against counterfeit products. At the same time, in more than 80% of the ESBU’s cases, pre-trial proceedings were not completed by the end of the reporting period (which means that the cases were not forwarded to court, suspicion was not served, the cases were not concluded, closed). The percentage of similar NP’s cases was 68%.
Therefore, the issue of reducing the duration of pre-trial investigation of cases under Article 229 of the Criminal Code by both ESBU detectives and NPU investigators in order to refer them to court remains relevant. This conclusion is also supported by statistical information on the outcomes of court proceedings in criminal cases related to IPR infringements — the number of cases sent to court is disproportionate to the number of criminal proceedings investigated during the same period.
Article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine |
Criminal proceedings initiated during 2021-2023 General Prosecutor’s Office |
Court judgments issued during 2021-2023 Unified State Register of Court Judgments |
176 | 146 | 18 |
177 | 38 | 1 |
229 | 241 | 14 |
Unfortunately, from the general statistics of cases published by the Prosecutor-General’s Office, it is not possible to obtain summarized data on seized counterfeit goods and equipment under Article 229 of the Criminal Code and their destruction or information on the further status of initiated proceedings within the reporting period (since the new reporting period only includes cases initiated during the current year).
Pakharenko & Partners’ practice
To have an idea of the number of counterfeit goods seized within criminal proceedings, we will refer to the statistical data of Pakharenko and Partners IP and Law Firm in the cases handled by the company over the past 3 years in the interests of its clients.
The total number of cases handled: 85 criminal cases initiated under Art. 229 of the Criminal Code, in which 9 verdicts were issued, 5 of which were based on a settlement agreement. In the course of criminal proceedings in these cases, more than 150,000 counterfeit product items, unfinished products, packages, labels and materials used for the production of counterfeit products were seized.
After passing of the mentioned court decisions, under the control of the victim’s representative (Pakharenko and Partners), 1,356 counterfeit product items were destroyed, including 20 headphones, 32 mobile phones, 105 user manuals, 37 watches, 750 pieces of textile products, 412 items of household chemicals and their labels.
The practice of Pakharenko and Partners shows that duration of a trial in criminal cases ranges from six months to two years. If the settlement agreement is sent to the court along with an indictment, then a court judgment can be obtained within one hearing. If the trial is subject to normal procedure, then everything depends on the complexity of the case, the amount of documents in the case file, the strategy of the defense, etc. Court proceedings can last for years.
In the practice of Pakharenko and Partners, there is a case concerning an organized criminal group of 7 persons charged under Par. 3 of Art. 229 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (No. 509/513/22) considered by the Ovidiopol court in Odesa Region, where the court has been unable to hold even a preliminary hearing for two years.
It should be noted that in the recent year, in some cases, the pre-trial investigations carried out by the ESB are quite active and fast. Pakharenko and Partners believe that, in fact, once criminal proceedings are initiated, reaching verdicts based on a settlement agreement is possible within one year if the proceedings are not dragged out by the prosecutor’s office and the courts.
In the course of the trial in several criminal cases, despite seized products being confirmed as counterfeit, the courts return them to the persons from whom they were seized due to existing procedural errors, or due to the passive position of the investigator/detective in court when the respective requests are considered.
In several cases, confiscated equipment that was used for the production of counterfeit products were returned to an infringer by the court at the stage of the pre-trial investigation, in particular due to another person’s ownership of the equipment (lease).
Such judicial practice should be improved by way of stepping up the involvement of rights holders’ representatives in the pre-trial investigation, in particular, participation in court hearings regarding the seizure of seized products and complaints about the cancellation of the seizure or return of property. For its part, Pakharenko and Partners, as representatives of rights holders, assist investigators and detectives in drawing up procedural documents, arrange for conducting the necessary examinations; however, this issue must be resolved at the methodological level.
Legislation
The low penalties sanctions of Articles 177 and 229 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the absence of mandatory destruction of counterfeit goods, materials, and equipment used in their production, and the lack of such a deterrent factor for potential offenders as imprisonment under Article 229 of the Criminal Code lead to the inadequate societal danger of legal responsibility for offenders. Thus, these provisions do not meet the requirements of Article 10 for the implementation of corrective measures in accordance with Directive 2004/48/EC.
To strengthen responsibility in the field of intellectual property rights protection, ensure adequate societal danger from counterfeit products, and increase the level of protection for victims, we propose introducing legislative amendments to:
– Amend the sanctions contained in Article 177 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, increase penalties by increasing terms of imprisonment and fines, and implement non-alternative destruction of counterfeit products, equipment/raw materials used in their production;
– Amend the sanctions contained in Article 229 of the Criminal Code by reintroducing imprisonment, increasing fines, and implementing non-alternative destruction of counterfeit products, equipment/raw materials used in their production.
The results of the analysis of measures taken by law-enforcement and judicial authorities over the past 3 years:
- In order to assess the effectiveness of measures taken by law-enforcement agencies with an aim to remove counterfeit goods infringing IP rights from the market, rights holders believe that general statistics of the Prosecutor-General’s Office should be supplemented with data on the type and quantity of seized counterfeit goods and equipment under Article 229 of the Criminal Code and their subsequent destruction, and data on the number and subject matters of court judgments in all initiated court proceedings.
- According to the rights holders, the heavy workload of all law-enforcement agencies and courts, as well as the subjective influences of infringers significantly drag the pre-trial investigations and trials of criminal proceedings under Articles 176, 177, 229 of the Criminal Code. Rights holders expect the work of law-enforcement and judicial bodies in this area to be intensified and improved.
- In the course of the trial in several criminal cases, despite establishing that the seized products are counterfeit, the courts return them to the persons from whom they were seized due to existing procedural errors, or due to the passive position of the investigator/detective in the court when respective requests are considered.
Possible steps to step up IPR enforcement within the country:
- Increasing specialization and training of investigators/detectives investigating criminal cases involving IPR infringements.
- Active involvement of representatives of rights holders in pre-trial investigations, particularly in participation in court hearings regarding seizure of confiscated products and complaints on cancellation of seizure or return of property. Such participation can be the source of weightier arguments than the participation of an investigator/detective/prosecutor in cases of this category, which is often a mere formality.
- In order to reduce the duration of a pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings and avoid procedural errors during the judicial review of cases, we suggest creating a working group involving stakeholders such as rights holders and law-enforcement agencies under the coordination of the Monitoring Center on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights of UANIPIO. As a part of this group’s activity, we suggest carrying out analysis of 5-10 criminal cases and developing a typical algorithm of the actions of law-enforcement agencies during a pre-trial investigation of cases under Article 229 of the Criminal Code and during the trials of such cases.
Summary
The system of intellectual property rights protection against counterfeit and pirated goods by customs and law-enforcement agencies in cooperation with rights holders is functioning but requires further improvement, by implementing the measures proposed above.
Among right holders’ general recommendations on improvement of IP rights enforcement by customs and law-enforcement agencies, the following are particularly worth mentioning:
- Developing transparent and qualified methodology for assessing the performance of state bodies to implement uniform effective state policy in the field of enforcement of IP rights.
- Consolidation of the efforts of customs and law-enforcement agencies in the field of IPR enforcement by defining and synchronizing the goals and objectives of their interaction.
-
Alexander Pakharenko
Partner of Pakharenko and Partners IP and Law Firm, Attorney-at-Law, Ukrainian patent attorney, Director of the Ukraine Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy
Graduate of the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, Kharkiv Institute of Intellectual Property, Law Faculty of the Interregional Academy of Personnel Development in Kyiv, Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine. His 24-year long practice in the field of IP encompasses consulting on all aspects of IPR protection, licensing and enforcement, anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy measures and developing anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy strategies.
Alexander has been actively involved in conducting training seminars for the Customs Service and Police Force on behalf of rights holders, and takes part in organizing awareness-raising activities in the field of anti-counterfeiting. He also participates regularly in various working groups on improving the legal framework for fighting counterfeit items in Ukraine.

ADDRESS:
72 Velyka Vasylkivska Street,
Business Centre Olympiysky,
Kyiv, 03150, Ukraine
Tel: +380 44 593 96 93
Fax: +380 44 451 40 48
E-mail: pakharenko@pakharenko.com.ua; alexander@pakharenko.com.ua
Web-site: www.pakharenko.ua
IP and Law Firm Pakharenko & Partners was established in 1994 and has offices in Kyiv and London. As a firm providing full IP service coverage, we are keen to develop successful protection and enforcement strategies for our clients, covering the development of IP portfolio, acquisition of IPRs, commercialisation of IPRs, enforcement and management of IPRs including patents (inventions and utility models), designs, trademarks and geographical indications, domain names, copyright and related rights, plant breeders’ rights both on the national and international level.
The firm provides assistance to national and foreign clients in securing and enforcing their intellectual property rights in Ukraine and CIS countries.
The company’s lawyers have been involved in anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy activities since the implementation of the relevant provisions on IPR enforcement in Ukraine legislation.
Our staff also possess expertise in pharmaceutical law, competition law, media law, corporate and commercial law, commercial litigation.
We are able to service the needs of our clients around the world through our established network of associates. The special relationships developed by our company with many attorney firms in key foreign markets provide ongoing, substantial benefits to our internationally-focused clients.
Main practice areas
Intellectual Property Law, Anti-Counterfeiting and Anti-Piracy Operations and Legal Support, Media Law, Advertising Law, Competition Law, Pharmaceutical Law, Corporate Law, Customs Law, Commercial and IP Litigation
Membership in organization
The company and its members are actively involved in the operation of national and international non-governmental organizations, such as: AIPPI, INTA, PTMG, IBA, FICPI, MARQUES, Ukrainian Patent Attorney’s Association (UPAA), American Chamber of Commerce (ACC) in Ukraine, German-Ukrainian Chamber of Industry and Commerce (AHK Ukraine), European Business Association (EBA), Ukrainian Trademark Association (UTA), Ukrainian Bar Association (UBA), Ukrainian Advocates’ Association (UAA) and a number of other associations.
The company is a co-founder of the Ukraine Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy which is a part of Global Anti-Counterfeiting Group including 24 national and regional organizations.