Intellectual property is often viewed by businesses as something secondary: “we’ll handle it later,” “it’s just a name,” “no one will sue.” But the reality of recent years shows something quite different—it is precisely intangible assets that are increasingly becoming the focus of conflicts, legal disputes, and financial losses.
This is particularly evident in the creative industry, where the line between inspiration and infringement can be very thin. Using real stories, characters, and names is a popular tool for creating compelling content. But without proper legal vetting, the consequences can be not just reputational, but very real financial losses.
The story surrounding HBO’s “Chernobyl” series is one of the most telling examples. It began as a matter of ethics and consent to use a name, and ended with the seizure of an international company’s trademarks in Ukraine. And this is no longer about art—it’s about the enforcement of court rulings, liability, and the real value of intellectual property.
From TV Series to Court: How the Dispute Arose
Ms. Lyudmila Ignatenko a lawsuit in April 2020. She stated that the creators of the TV series “Chernobyl” had used her name and that of her late husband, Vasyl Ignatenko, as character names. However, Ms. Lyudmila Ignatenko had not given her consent for the use of these names. Ms. Lyudmila noted that the creators of the series had violated her personal non-property right to the use of her name and her husband’s name. In her lawsuit, Ms. Lyudmila Ignatenko stated that the unlawful use of her name had worsened her emotional state, and that she was forced to change her place of residence “due to harassment by journalists, friends, and colleagues directed not only at her but also at her son.”
Ms. Lyudmila Ignatenko requested 2.5 million UAH in moral damages, the removal of certain scenes from the series, and a ban on distributing the series until then.
The series’ creators denied the allegations and asserted that the project is documentary in nature. “Home Box Office, Inc. did not provide the court with evidence demonstrating that the series contains documentary segments. The presence in the series of authentic footage or testimony that would unequivocally confirm its documentary nature has not been established,” the cassation court’s ruling states.
Before the case reached the Civil Court of Cassation, it had been heard by lower courts. Prior to this, the Kyiv Court of Appeals ordered the payment of 144,000 UAH in moral damages to Ms. Lyudmila Ignatenko, but denied the part of the claim in which she demanded the removal of scenes from the series and a halt to its distribution.
The Court of Cassation confirmed that the series’ creators had violated Ms. Lyudmila Ignatenko’s rights by using her name without her consent. The court deemed the removal of scenes from the series “not objectively justified and proportionate.”
At the same time, the court increased the amount of compensation for moral damages to 500,000 UAH.
As of April 2026, HBO had not complied with the court’s decision and had not paid the awarded compensation to Ms. Lyudmila Ignatenko. That is why private enforcement officer Andriy Avtorgov placed a lien on the company’s trademarks registered in Ukraine. If the court’s decision is not voluntarily complied with, the trademarks will be put up for sale, and anyone interested will be able to participate in the auction.
Why a seizure is not a “high-profile exception” but standard practice
When a debtor fails to comply with a court decision, the enforcement mechanism is triggered. And this is where many businesses make a mistake—they think this applies only to bank accounts or physical property. In reality, virtually any asset can be subject to enforcement, including:
- trademarks
- copyrights
- corporate assets, etc.
In the case of HBO, a private enforcement agent placed a lien specifically on the company’s trademarks registered in Ukraine.
What this means:
- the company cannot dispose of its brand
- it is restricted in exercising these rights in its business operations
- in the future, these assets may be sold to repay the debt
In other words, intellectual property effectively becomes a tool to ensure compliance with a court ruling. And it is important to understand: this is not a “precedent for the sake of news,” but a completely standard mechanism that simply does not often make it into the media.
The HBO case is not just a high-profile story, but a clear signal to the entire market. This case demonstrates several important points at once:
- intellectual property is effectively protected in Ukraine
- court rulings regarding IP are enforced
- intangible assets can be seized and sold to ensure enforcement of a court ruling
And most importantly—infringements no longer go unpunished, even when it comes to international companies. Contact our law firm—we’ll help ensure your assets work for you, rather than becoming a tool for enforcement.
copyright / HBO in Ukraine / intellectual property / trademark
