Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
🍬 Battle for the gummy bears: how the Chernivtsi court overturned a smuggling case because of a candy’s generic shape
08 in September 2026 the Chernivtsi District Court of the city of Chernivtsi closed proceedings in the case concerning a customs violation against the director of Monzhar LLC for lack of an event and elements of an administrative offense.
The Telegram channel "Sudom po skhemakh" reports this with reference to case No. 725/8822/26.
🚚 What did customs accuse the importer of?
23 in June 2026 a shipment of sweets from the Turkish manufacturer For a sweets Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi arrived at the Chernivtsi customs post in a DAF truck with a semi-trailer for Monzhar LLC.
During the customs inspection, officers suspected an intellectual property rights violation (Art. 476 of the Customs Code of Ukraine) regarding the item “Sweeto Bears Jelly 1000G” — gummy candies in the shape of bears with a total weight of 4,2 tons (4 200 packages).
Customs authorities engaged an expert who, in opinion No. 98/07-206, stated that the appearance of the gummy bears is similar to the international trademark of S.A. “Rigo Trading” (the rights holder for the well-known Haribo bears) to the extent that they could be confused.
⚖️ Defense arguments and the court’s position
The company director’s lawyer filed a motion to close the case, submitting a review by a Ukrainian patent attorney No. 17/R/26. The defense established the following:
• Generic shape: Figurative gummy candies in the shape of a bear are one of the most common, effectively “generic,” formats of confectionery products worldwide and in Ukraine, so the shape alone cannot be monopolized.
• Flaws in the expert opinion: The customs expert did not perform a side-by-side visual comparison, did not provide comparative tables, and did not analyze the market of other manufacturers.
• Procedural defects: The customs report did not contain a clear formulation of the director’s personal guilt, as opposed to that of the legal entity.
Judge Nesterenko Ye.V. noted that there are two mutually contradictory expert opinions in the case, and all doubts about proof of guilt under Art. 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine must be interpreted in favor of the person.
By court order, the proceedings were closed, and 4,2 tons of the seized marmalade were returned to the owner.
💡 Advice from the Telegram channel “Sudom po skhemakh”
• 🐻 Product shape is not always a trademark: If customs accuses you of infringing intellectual property rights because of a product’s shape (a bottle, a bear, a square bar), check whether that shape is “generic” for the market. Involve patent attorneys to review the findings of customs experts.
• 📄 Demand specification of an official’s guilt: Customs authorities often draw up reports against company managers for the mere fact of moving cargo. If the report does not clearly describe the director’s personal unlawful actions, that is a substantial ground for closing the case in court.
• 🔍 Doubts work in your favor: In intellectual property defense cases, an alternative expert analysis (a review or a repeat expert opinion) creates discrepancies that, under the presumption of innocence, the court is obliged to interpret in favor of the importer.
Telegram publication
