Brand Protection and Anti-Counterfeit Investigations in Ukraine

Criminal and administrative action usually enters a brand-protection strategy after customs, civil, and operational measures have been used or ruled out. These routes are hard to control: the case passes through investigators, prosecutors, and courts, and a procedural gap can weaken the result. Effective enforcement therefore depends on choosing the right route, building the evidence before action begins, and planning what happens to counterfeit goods after seizure.

Criminal Enforcement Under Article 229

Article 229 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine covers intentional unlawful use of a trademark, trade name, or protected geographical indication when the statutory material-damage threshold is met. Liability increases for repeated conduct, group activity, or larger losses. Sanctions are financial; the most serious category may also restrict the offender from holding certain positions or conducting particular activities.

The current provision does not prescribe imprisonment or mandatory confiscation and destruction of counterfeit goods as part of the Article 229 sanction. Seizure, final confiscation, and disposal therefore need to be pursued through the appropriate procedural route rather than assumed to follow automatically from a conviction.

Detectives of Ukraine’s Bureau of Economic Security investigate Article 229 offences. Official 2025 monitoring recorded 111 proceedings under Article 229 across the Bureau and National Police. The Bureau itself handled 82 proceedings, referred 26 to court, stopped 21 large-scale counterfeit production operations, and reported more than UAH 300 million in seized counterfeit goods, raw materials, and equipment.

Administrative Measures Against Counterfeiting

Article 51-2 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences covers intentional infringement of protected IP rights. It provides for a fine and confiscation of unlawfully produced goods, equipment, and manufacturing materials. This route may apply when the facts do not meet the criminal damage threshold, but the infringement and responsible person can still be proved.

In practice, an enforcement file should document the protected mark, show how genuine goods differ from the suspected counterfeit, and connect the products to an identifiable seller, producer, or distributor. Poor identification, an incomplete protocol, or an uncertain chain of custody can weaken the case even where counterfeit goods have been seized.

Choosing the Enforcement Route

The enforcement route should follow the evidence rather than the desired outcome. Criminal proceedings may be relevant where the facts support intentional infringement and the applicable material-damage threshold. Administrative action can address proven IP infringement where the criminal threshold is not met. Customs measures are relevant when counterfeit goods cross the border, while civil proceedings may be used to pursue injunctions, damages, or other remedies against an identified infringer.

These routes can also interact. Evidence collected during an investigation may support more than one form of enforcement, but the requirements, authorities, and available remedies differ. Before approaching a suspected seller or manufacturer, the rights holder should establish what evidence is already available, what still needs to be verified, and which procedure can realistically deliver the intended result.

Evidence Before Enforcement

Effective enforcement starts before an authority visits a shop, warehouse, or production site. Through intellectual property investigations, Molfar Intelligence can identify sellers and manufacturers, conduct test purchases, map related companies, document online accounts, and trace storage or distribution points. The findings distinguish confirmed facts from indicators that still require verification.

Premature contact with a target or uncontrolled circulation of case details can compromise months of work. Stock can move, listings can disappear and a warehouse can be cleared before an authorised search. Current location checks, controlled access to case information, and a structured evidence package reduce that risk.

For cases moving towards enforcement, corporate investigations and litigation support can establish the chronology, entities, ownership links and source trail for legal review. Counsel should determine the complaint, jurisdiction, and procedural applications. Investigative findings do not replace legal advice or evidence admitted by a court.

Seizure and Destruction

Seizure does not end the case. The team should record each seized batch, preserve samples, confirm storage arrangements, and document the chain of custody. Where the procedure allows, the brand owner or an authorised representative should take part in identification and verify the inventory.

Destruction requires its own legal basis and documentary trail. Administrative and customs procedures contain confiscation or destruction mechanisms, while Article 229 does not itself impose mandatory destruction as a criminal sanction. Counsel should plan the requested disposition from the outset and verify the final order and destruction record.

Ukraine has criminal, administrative, customs and civil routes for IP enforcement, but none operates as an automatic raid-and-destroy mechanism. The 2026 U.S. Special 301 review of Ukraine remains suspended because of the war, meaning Ukraine is not currently assessed through the ordinary annual process. A workable brand-protection plan ties the chosen enforcement route to verified targets, admissible evidence, controlled seizure, and documented disposal. The investigation should establish those facts before enforcement begins, not attempt to reconstruct them after goods, sellers, or online evidence have disappeared.