The role of trademark legal protection in supporting environmentally oriented brands
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37772/2518-1718-2025-2(50)-18Keywords:
green marks, circular economy, intellectual property, statistics, certificateAbstract
Problems setting. Trademarks within the framework of the green economy serve several important functions:
- They are applied across various industries.
- They complement patents as indicators of environmental innovation.
- They build consumer trust and help navigate the market.
- They contribute to the capitalization of intellectual property.
- They increase the added value of innovations.
- They serve as tools for business recovery.
- They enable access to state support.
- They are an accessible and effective mechanism for small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as companies with limited innovation activity.
However, trademarks have their own life cycle, which can be managed. In the context of the green economy, this issue deserves further attention.
Analysis of recent researches and publications. The most common mechanisms for the loss of registered trademarks include non-payment of fees, oppositions, and court decisions. A review of recent studies reveals the following empirical facts related to the loss of trademark rights:
- The average lifespan of a trademark is between 10 and 20 years.
- Domestic companies are about one-third more likely to lose trademarks than foreign ones.
- Registering a trademark under a legal entity reduces the risk of its expiration by approximately 15%.
- Figurative marks (those featuring logos, colors, or unique fonts) tend to last longer.
- An increase in the number of classes of goods and services covered by the registration can extend the trademark’s lifespan by up to 5%.
The purpose of the article is to examine trademarks used in the Ukrainian market for environmentally friendly products, with a focus on identifying the specific characteristics of their operation.
Article’s main body. It has been established that, in the Ukrainian context, the average lifespan of such trademarks is shorter than in global benchmarks, and several unexpected differences have been identified: foreign owners lose registrations more frequently; legal entities do not always have an advantage; and figurative marks do not tend to last longer than word marks. The author also analyzes the relationship between the classes of goods and services and trademark survival. The study confirms that trademarks serve as indicators of innovation activity. It also highlights the complexity of the interplay between market and legal factors in shaping the "life cycle" of a trademark.
Conclusions and prospects for development. The presented study has shown that trademarks serve as an important legal instrument in implementing circular economy strategies, as they provide brand protection and support the commercialization of environmental innovations. The research results indicate that the current trademark protection system in Ukraine is neutral with respect to the linguistic or semantic features of the sign, as well as the categories of applicants. The main reasons for the expiration of trademark certificates are primarily market-driven. The Ukrainian trademark market for "green" goods and services demonstrates certain features that differ from global trends.
Further research should take into account judicial practice in trademark disputes related to the green economy, in order to develop effective legal protection mechanisms. Special attention should also be paid to the relationship between licensing, the expansion of intellectual property portfolios, and the lifespan of a trademark.
References
Favot, M., Vesnic, L., Priore, R., Bincoletto, A., & Morea, F. (2023). Green patents and green codes: How different methodologies lead to different results. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances, 18, 200132.
Nadaf, S. J., Jadhav, N. R., Naikwadi, H. S., Savekar, P. L., Sapkal, I. D., Kambli, M. M., & Desai, I. A. (2022). Green synthesis of gold and silver nanoparticles: Updates on research, patents, and future prospects. OpenNano, 8, 100076.
Yu, C. Y. (2024). Experiential learning for applying green patents in sustainable education. Sustainability, 16(15), 6591.
Shmatkov, D., Gorokhovatskyi, O., & Vnukova, N. (2023). Elaborative trademark similarity evaluation using goods and services automated comparison. In COLINS-2023: 7th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Systems (pp. 293–308). Kharkiv.
Shmatkov, D., Hlibko, S., Tokarieva, K., & Zagalaz, J. C. (2021). On the question of why copyright cannot be synonymous with intellectual property within digital competence frameworks. Revista de Propiedad Inmaterial, 32, 215-231.
European Patent Office. (2007). Scenarios for the future: How might IP regimes evolve by 2025? What global legitimacy might such regimes have? EPO.
Castaldi, C., & Mendonça, S. (2022). Regions and trademarks: Research opportunities and policy insights from leveraging trademarks in regional innovation studies. Regional Studies, 56(2), 177–189.
Block, J., Lambrecht, D., Willeke, T., Cucculelli, M., & Meloni, D. (2025). Green patents and green trademarks as indicators of green innovation. Research Policy, 54(1), 105138.
Todorova, S. (2024). Green trademarks and sustainability. Стратегии на образователната и научната политика, 32(1s), 87–97.
Pfeifer, L. M., Schreiner, T. F., & Sattler, H. (2025). The role of consumer-based brand equity on the prolongation of trademarks. Journal of Brand Management, 32(2), 94–108.
Bas, J., Sáiz, P., & Zofío, J. L. (2025). What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger: On the determinants of trademark survivability over the long term. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
