With the rapid expansion of e-commerce, online marketplaces have become one of the largest environments for the use of trademarks on the Internet.
According to Retailers.ua, the Ukrainian market has demonstrated steady growth, expanding by 15–20% in 2025. As early as 2023, the turnover of Rozetka, the leading Ukrainian e-commerce platform, amounted to approximately UAH 45 billion, while total online sales in Ukraine reached an estimated UAH 239 billion in 2024. These indicators continue to grow in 2026.
Within the meaning of Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine «On Electronic Commerce», marketplaces should be regarded as providers of intermediary information society services, namely entities that facilitate the transmission, hosting, and storage of information through information and communication systems.
At the same time, the legal status of online platforms in Ukraine is not uniform and depends on the particular business model under which the platform operates. Where a platform participates directly in the sales process—such as by processing orders, facilitating payments, or arranging delivery—it may be considered an independent e-commerce operator. Such status entails a corresponding scope of rights and obligations towards consumers.
Ukrainian legislation does not currently impose mandatory seller verification obligations on marketplaces. At the same time, pursuant to Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine «On Electronic Commerce», sellers are required to provide accurate information about themselves.
However, verifying the accuracy of such information is not a legal obligation of the platform. This approach creates significant enforcement gaps, making it more difficult to identify infringing sellers and hold them liable for violations of intellectual property rights.
Taking these challenges into account, Ukrainian legislation has begun moving towards greater transparency in e-commerce and improved seller identification requirements.
In particular, the Law of Ukraine «On Consumer Protection» No. 3153-IX dated 10 June 2023, which will enter into force upon the termination or cancellation of martial law in Ukraine, is intended to enhance the transparency of e-commerce operators and regulate their interaction with online platforms. The legislation specifically addresses one of the key problems in electronic commerce—the inability to properly identify sellers. This issue significantly complicates the enforcement of intellectual property rights and effectively shifts the balance of responsibility towards greater involvement of marketplaces in monitoring unlawful content.
At present, Ukrainian marketplaces generally do not conduct proactive monitoring for intellectual property infringements. Instead, they act only upon receipt of a complaint submitted by the rights holder or its duly authorised representative.
In contrast, international platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba and AliExpress employ significantly more advanced enforcement mechanisms, including seller verification programmes and automated systems designed to detect intellectual property infringements proactively.
Under the current legal framework, submitting a complaint to the relevant marketplace remains the primary mechanism for protecting intellectual property rights. The effectiveness of such a complaint depends directly on following the appropriate preparation and submission procedure.
The first stage is to gather all documents confirming ownership of the relevant intellectual property rights, including copyrights or related rights where applicable.
The complaint should include documentary evidence of ownership, such as a trademark registration certificate or an official extract from the relevant register.
Where the complaint is submitted by a representative, a duly executed document confirming the representative’s authority must also be provided, such as a power of attorney or a licence agreement.
Such document should expressly authorise the representative to:
For international marketplaces, these documents should be accompanied by a notarised English translation. It is important to note that failure to provide sufficient evidence of ownership or adequate authority constitutes an independent ground for rejecting the complaint without substantive consideration.
The second stage involves properly identifying the infringement and determining its legal nature.
The rights holder should clearly establish whether the infringement relates to:
The complaint should also include evidence documenting the infringement, including screenshots displaying the relevant webpage URL or other visual materials.
Where copyright infringement concerning a digital work is alleged, the complaint should also include the relevant metadata identifying that digital content.
In practice, failure to accurately identify the infringement or provide sufficient supporting evidence frequently results in the complaint being rejected or only partially upheld.
The third stage is to prepare the complaint in a clear and legally substantiated manner.
The complaint should contain:
The complaint should also cite the relevant legal grounds supporting the claim.
Depending on the circumstances, the requested remedy should be clearly formulated, whether it involves:
The fourth stage is to submit the complaint strictly in accordance with the procedure established by the relevant marketplace.
Failure to follow the platform’s prescribed complaint mechanism often complicates communication with the platform and may significantly delay review of the complaint.
The final stage is to monitor the complaint after it has been submitted.
Since there are no unified statutory review periods, each marketplace establishes its own response times under its internal policies.
In practice, a single complaint is not always sufficient to achieve the desired outcome, and additional communication with the platform may be required.
Ultimately, the effective protection of intellectual property rights on online marketplaces requires a comprehensive approach that combines efficient cooperation between platforms and rights holders, well-defined complaint handling procedures, and robust internal enforcement mechanisms for addressing repeat infringers.