The court heard testimony from experts in the case regarding the rights to Ivan Marchuk's paintings
The Ternopil City and District Court has begun hearing the merits of the case brought by artist Ivan Marchuk regarding the rights to images of his paintings. During the hearing, the court heard from experts who examined the signature of one of the defendants—Ihor Apostol—on the license agreement. The experts reached the unequivocal conclusion that the signature was not made by the person it was supposed to be.
The Ternopil City and District Court proceeded to hear the merits of the case regarding the license agreement concerning the property rights to images of Ivan Marchuk’s paintings. During the hearing, experts were heard, and the parties delivered their opening statements. Experts from the Lviv Research Institute of Forensic Expertise, who examined the signature of the defendant, Ihor Apostol, on the agreement, joined the hearing via video conference.
Olena Savchuk, head of the laboratory for handwriting and technical document analysis, explained that the experts conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation. They compared the signature on the licensing agreement with samples provided for verification.
Based on the results of the analysis, the experts identified significant differences between the signatures. This gave them grounds for a categorical conclusion: the signature on behalf of Igor Apostol on the document under examination was made by another person. “A fairly significant number of substantial, consistent, and stable discrepancies were identified between the signatures on the document under examination and the signatures provided as samples. Based on this, we have reached the definitive conclusion that the signatures on the document in question purporting to be from Igor Apostol were not written by him, but by another person,” Savchuk explained.
The parties to the proceedings also asked the expert whether the fact that Apostol did not provide experimental samples of his signature had hindered the examination. Savchuk replied that the documents available to the experts were sufficient to conduct the examination. After the experts were questioned, the court again gave the parties the opportunity to make opening statements. This was necessary due to changes in the subject matter of the lawsuit and the body of evidence.
What Marchuk’s Side Is Seeking
The artist’s attorney, Natalia Kalinichenko, explained that Ivan Marchuk initially sought to have the disputed agreement declared invalid on the grounds of error and fraud. However, after receiving the results of the expert analysis of Igor Apostol’s signature, the plaintiff clarified his claims. Now, Marchuk’s side is asking the court to rule that the intellectual property rights to the works created by the artist were not transferred to the licensees under License Agreement No. 1 dated May 21, 2020. The plaintiff also insists that the defendants, their successors in title, and sublicensees do not hold these rights.
Kalinichenko believes that the agreement is void due to failure to comply with the written form requirement. She explained that the document provided for the transfer of an exclusive license, and its parties were Marchuk as the licensor and four licensees, who are now the defendants in the case. According to the attorney, the absence of Igor Apostol’s signature means that the written form requirement for the agreement was not met. She cited Article 1107 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which governs the form of agreements regarding the disposal of intellectual property rights.
What the Defendants Stated in Court
Following attorney Marchuk’s opening statement, defendant Serhiy Pavlenko delivered his opening remarks. He insists that the contract was properly executed and remains in effect. Therefore, Pavlenko asked the court to dismiss the artist’s claim.
The defendant also questioned the argument that problems with the signature of one of the parties automatically imply a failure by all parties to comply with the written form requirement for the contract. “The plaintiff has not proven why a possible defect in the signature of one of the five parties to the contract implies a failure by all parties to comply with the written form requirement,” Pavlenko stated.
He added that since the contract was signed, he had not exercised the rights granted to him but had merely fulfilled his obligations. At the same time, given Marchuk’s position, Pavlenko considers a settlement agreement possible. Another defendant, Mykhailo Synytsia, said he was acquainted with the artist. To confirm this, he mentioned photographs taken with Marchuk.
Sinytsia also stated that he produced merchandise featuring prints of the artist’s paintings and reproductions commissioned by his assistant, Tamara Strypko. According to the defendant, this can be confirmed by records of their conversations and correspondence. Separately, Sinytsia explained his position regarding the terms of the contract. He asserts that the document did not restrict Marchuk’s right to dispose of the original paintings and use them at his own discretion. The restrictions, he said, applied only to the transfer of commercial rights to third parties without the consent of the licensees.
When will the case resume?
The hearing lasted more than five hours. The parties to the proceedings asked numerous questions about the circumstances under which Ivan Marchuk met the defendants, how the license agreement was drafted, and who signed it and under what conditions.
Due to the length of the proceedings, the court did not have time to hear from all participants. The opening statements by defendant Tamara Strypko and the representative of Igor Apostol are scheduled for November 18. The court is expected to resume hearing the case at that time.
How the Dispute Over the Rights to Marchuk’s Paintings Arose
The Ternopil City and District Court opened proceedings in the case on July 11, 2025. The lawsuit concerns a licensing agreement dated May 21, 2020, which provides for the transfer of exclusive property rights to images of Ivan Marchuk’s works. The defendants in the case are the four signatories to the agreement: Serhiy Pavlenko, Mykhailo Synytsia, Ihor Apostol, and Tamara Strypko. Ihor Apostol is the son of former People’s Deputy Mykhailo Apostol.
The artist publicly announced the attempt to seize the copyrights to images of his works in December 2025. At that time, he wrote about the situation on his Facebook page. The court must now consider the arguments of both parties and evaluate the evidence, including the handwriting analysis report. The experts’ conclusion alone does not mean that the court has already declared the contract invalid. The final decision in the case must be made by the court.
As part of the lawsuit filed by artist Ivan Marchuk, the Lviv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise examined the signatures of one of the defendants—Igor Apostol.
Works by Ivan Marchuk, an artist with a unique style whose paintings are housed in museums around the world and have long been part of Ukrainian cultural identity, were once again exhibited in Kyiv. The exhibition “Ivan Marchuk: Museum Collections” opened at the “Chocolate House,” which is hosting an exhibition of this caliber for the first time since 2022, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
