Two Galyas, one market: what is happening between the Baluvana Galya and Galya Baluvana chains

Recently, news spread that Ihor Sukhomlyn, owner of the Baluvana Galya restaurant chain, is preparing a lawsuit against the owners of the Galya Baluvana semi-finished food chain for violating the trademark agreement.

Ordinary consumers suddenly learned these two chains exist in parallel, neither is a franchise of the other brand, but rather they are independent businesses that are now facing off in the legal arena. But can one “Galya” prohibit the other from operating under a similar name?

This case may sound like a mere confusion of names until a lawsuit appears. And suddenly it is no longer about “who sells what food,” but about the scope of the license, fair competition, and the commercial meaning of one’s own name.

Disclaimer:

We are unable to state with certainty who is at fault in this dispute, as we have not seen the agreement between the owners of both chains. The information presented below is based partly on facts obtained from open sources and partly on assumptions.

Chronology of the conflict:

2007 — restaurateur Ihor Sukhomlyn registers the trademark “Baluvana Galya.” From the list of goods and services specified in the application, it is not immediately clear what kind of business is being conducted under this trademark, as it includes “nurseries,” “launching satellites for others,” and “posting posters.”

2011 — Ihor Sukhomlyn opens the first varenyky restaurant in Chernihiv under the Baluvana Galya trademark.

2018 — Oleksandr Teliha and Volodymyr Matviychuk submit an entry to register the Galya Baluvana trademark. The Ukrainian IP Office refuses to register it due to non-payment of the official application fee.

2019 — Another trademark, “Baluvana Galya,” owned by Ihor Sukhomlyn, is registered; in the same year, a new composite trademark, “Galya Baluvana,” owned by Oleksandr Teliha and Volodymyr Matviychuk, is submitted for registration; in the same year, the first store under the latter trademark opens in Lutsk.

2020 — The trademark “Galya Baluvana” by Oleksandr Teliha and Volodymyr Matviychuk receives a preliminary refusal of registration.

2021 — The trademark “Galya Baluvana” by Oleksandr Teliha and Volodymyr Matviychuk is officially registered, as claimed by Ihor Sukhomlyn, with his permission through a previously concluded agreement between the owners of both trademarks. Today, this trademark belongs to Oleksandr Teliha, Serhii Spodin, and Alla Teliha.

2025 — Ihor Sukhomlyn files a lawsuit to protect trademark rights with the Commercial Court of Kyiv. However, by a ruling dated June 16, 2025, the claim was returned “due to the failure to remedy the deficiencies in the claim within the time limit, but this does not prevent a repeat application to the court.”

Could the owners of “Galya Baluvana” have violated the terms of the agreement, and if so, how?

Judging by recent statements, a license agreement was indeed concluded between the parties in 2021, which established the following conditions for the use of the “Galya Baluvana” trademark:

The trademark may only be used for certain goods (frozen semi-finished food);

prohibited use in catering establishments, the restaurant segment, or in the sale of ready-made food.

Most likely, the Ukrainian IP Office issued a preliminary refusal to register the trademark “Galya Baluvana” due to the previously registered similar trademark owned by Sukhomlyn, since such registration is prohibited in accordance with paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Rights to Marks for Goods and Services”:

“Designations that, on the date of filing the application or, if priority is claimed, on the date of priority, are identical or so similar that they can be confused, in particular associated with trademarks previously registered or applied for registration in Ukraine in the name of another person for the same or related goods and services.“

The use of the word element ”Galya” as such is not prohibited. However, in the context of a specific name, style, and commercial sphere, it may become part of a protected trademark. The combination of all elements of the trademark and the goods/services distributed with its use are decisive for legal protection.

Obviously, the agreement concluded between the owners of similar trademarks automatically solved this problem and was added as a basis for overcoming the previous refusal, which allowed the trademark to be registered.

However, according to open sources, from 2023, the Galya Baluvana chain (the frozen food chain) is significantly expanding its format of activity (such as launching a line of frozen ready-made restaurant meals). If this is considered a transition to the catering segment, which was prohibited by the agreement, then this was most likely the basis for the lawsuit.

What is a trademark coexistence agreement?

It is an agreement between the owners of two or more trademarks that determines who can use their mark and where, in such a way that it does not dilute the brands or harm the business interests of either party.

By entering into a trademark coexistence agreement, the parties seek to avoid the risk of infringement and potential litigation. While this agreement establishes clear rules for trademark use, it does not guarantee the absence of disputes but only provides a basis for their effective and efficient resolution.

What does trademark similarity mean under current Ukrainian law?

If the words in trademarks registered for identical/similar goods and/or services are identical but reversed, this is grounds for refusing to register the trademark. An existing trademark certificate gives its owner the right to prohibit others from using any identical/similar designation without their consent, if such use is made in relation to homogeneous goods/services.

However, if there are two identical registered trademarks, the owner of the earlier registration may:

• challenge the registration of the competitor’s later trademark in court (in our case, we are talking about this in the context of fulfilling the terms of the agreement on the coexistence of two trademarks);
• file a lawsuit for unfair competition.

Therefore, the mere fact of trademark registration does not guarantee the absence of disputes.

And in fact, the key threat for all owners is the loss of brand uniqueness in the consumer’s perception. Even if one trademark does not completely copy another and operates in a different segment, the fact of their simultaneous use in relation to food products can lead to brand “blurring.” Legally, this is called “the risk of misleading the public about the identity of the person who manufactures the goods or provides the service.” All this seems secondary until one brand ruins its reputation and the other suffers damage due to negative associations.

When considering a case of breach of a coexistence agreement, the court may take into account not only the formal similarity of the trademarks, but also other issues:

• Was the offender’s business expansion strategically planned with a view to the popularity of a similar brand?
• Did the defendant objectively understand that they were violating the agreement?
• Is the fault not with the defendants, but with the franchisees of “Galya Baluvana,” who developed the brand under a certain trademark and violated the terms of the franchise agreement?

Have there been similar cases in Ukraine?

Not identical ones, at least not in the public domain. But if you know of any, please write to the author using the contact details provided in this article. Also, if there is a contract, certain disputes and claims can be settled out of court.

There are similar cases abroad

Probably the most famous court cases of a similar nature were between 1978 and 2007 between Apple Corps (a music company founded by the Beatles) and Apple Computer (what we now know as Apple Inc.). In short, from the very beginning, there were several agreements between the companies to restrict the market for the use of their Apple trademarks, but disputes arose here and there.

For example, in 1986, Apple Computer added audio recording capabilities to its computers by installing a sound chip in the computer. In 1989, this led to a lawsuit by Apple Corps, which claimed that the 1981 settlement agreement had been violated.

In 1991, an amicable settlement was reached, and Apple Corps was paid $26.5 million. The settlement specified the respective rights of each company to the Apple trademark: Apple Corps had the right to use Apple for any “creative works whose primary content is music,” while Apple Computer had the right to use Apple for “goods or services… used to reproduce, launch, play, or otherwise deliver such content,” but not for content distributed on physical media.

However, after the launch of the iTunes music platform, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer for breach of contract, and the High Court in England ruled that iTunes did not infringe any class of goods or services, as it was a technological development and a computer program.

Is Ukrainian legislation sufficient for such cases?

Formally, yes, in the context of legislation, everything is relatively normal.

Currently, Ukrainian court practice in disputes concerning coexistence agreements for trademarks has not yet been fully established. It is also important to consider the duration of court proceedings (sometimes it is easier to reach a settlement agreement during the proceedings than to wait for a decision).

However, the consequences of such a dispute may be more interesting:

businesses will begin to more carefully specify permitted types and limits of activity in contracts (we would like to believe);

if the courts confirm the possibility of coexistence of trademarks with a clear distinction between activities, this will form a useful practice for the market.

What next

Given the situation, there are several options:

• Ihor Sukhomlyn’s lawsuit is resubmitted, the court confirms the violation of the license agreement, which leads to a ban on the use of the Galya Baluvana brand and compensation for the restaurateur (and the owners will come up with another name for their chain);
• the parties conclude a settlement agreement (which they can do in court), whereby “Galya Baluvana” returns to its original format of working with frozen products;
• Sukhomlyn loses, creating a dangerous precedent for other trademark owners in Ukraine.

The case of “Baluvana Galya” vs. “Galya Baluvana” is not just a dispute over the use of a name but has every chance of becoming an important precedent for future court practice in Ukraine. We suggest keeping a close eye on it.