Legal argument
Get the information - control the situation!
Main > Contact us > Intellectual property, business law services in the Eastern Europe and Lithuanian > Russian

The State Patent Bureau (Valstybinis patentų biuras) rulings in oppositions

Number of opposition: 2505
Grounds for the opposition: Article 7.1.2 of the Lithuanian law on Trademarks (Registration of a mark shall be declared invalid if the mark is: <...>identical with or similar to the earlier mark and because of the identity or similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier mark.)
The opponent: CHAMPION Products Europe Limited (Ireland)  
The applicant: UAB „OLIFĖJA“ (Lithuania)  
Opponent’s trademark:
Lithuanian national trademark Reg. No.21568 "Champion"(fig) 


CTM Reg. No. 000122630 “CHAMPION”
CTM Reg.No. 005777834


Opposed trademark: National trademark registration No.58862“ČEMPIONAS” (w)
Classes in question: 28, 28 v. 28, 28
Ruling:  Granted partially. The opposed trademark is confusingly similar to the earlier trademark, however the opposed trademark was registered for heading of classes 25 and 28 and the earlier trademark was registered for specific goods of classes 25 and 28. Thus the Bureau found that part of the goods in class 28 are not similar.  
Decision’s date: 07/01/2011


***
Number of opposition: 2550
Grounds for the opposition: Article 7.1.2 of the Lithuanian law on Trademarks (Registration of a mark shall be declared invalid if the mark is: <...>identical with or similar to the earlier mark and because of the identity or similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier mark.)
The opponent: FOSTER CAPITAL CORP. (British Virgin Is.)
The applicant: D. Šiputis personl company „TERRA LUCIDA“ (Lithuania)  
Opponent’s trademark:
CTM reg. No. 007591274 “TERRALUZ”


Opposed trademark: National trademark registration No.61571


Classes in question: 19 v. 19
Ruling: Rejected. The opponent failed to prove that the trademarks in question are similar. Although some similarity was found by the Bureau – it wasn’t sufficient for confusion of consumers. 
Decision’s date: 01/02/2011


***
Number of opposition: 2399
Grounds for the opposition: Article 7.1.2 of the Lithuanian law on Trademarks (Registration of a mark shall be declared invalid if the mark is: <...>identical with or similar to the earlier mark and because of the identity or similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier mark.) and Article 7.3 of the Lithuanian law on Trademarks (Registration of the mark may be declared invalid where it becomes evident that the application for the registration of a mark was made in bad faith by the applicant.)
The opponent: NATUZZI S.p.A (Italy)   
The applicant: UAB „Toruva“ (Lithuania)
Opponent’s trademark:
International trademark Reg. No. 736597 “Italsofa”, etc.
CTM Reg.No. 004501557


Opposed trademark:
National trademark Reg. No.58828 

Goods / services: 20, 35 v. 20, 35

Ruling:  Rejected. The Bureau found that the opponent failed to prove similarity of the trademarks in question. The opponent presented results of consumer opinion polls, showing that majority consumers treat both trademarks as similar. However the Bureau decided that the poll was organized wrongly: the opponent showed to the respondents both trademarks at the same time, while according to the applicable practice, the consumers very rarely have opportunity to see both trademarks at the same time and compare their similarities and differences. Also, while performing the poll, the opponent failed to inform the respondents what goods and services are marked with the trademarks. 
Decision’s date: 07/12/2010


***
Number of opposition: 2399
Grounds for the opposition: Article 7.1.2 of the Lithuanian law on Trademarks (Registration of a mark shall be declared invalid if the mark is: <...>identical with the business name of a legal person or possessing a misleading likelihood to the business name of a legal person, whose proprietor is another person who acquired the right to that name in the Republic of Lithuania prior to the date application for registration of the mark or the date of the priority, if on the day specified in the date the legal person had a right to engage in identical or similar trade to which the goods and/or services covered by the registered mark may be attributed).
The opponent: Investuotojų asociacija (Lithuania)   
The applicant: Lietuvos akcininkų asociacija (Lithuania)
Opponent’s rights:
Company name „Investuotojų asociacija“
Opposed trademark:
National trademark Reg. No.61110


Goods / services: 41v. 41

Ruling:  Rejected. The Bureau found that the trademarks in question are similar, however for rejecting the trademark’s registration the opponent had to prove that he had a right to engage in identical or similar trade to which the goods and/or services covered by the registered mark may be attributed before the application date of the opposed trademark’s. The opponent’s company name was registered on 05/06/2009, the opposed trademark was applied for registration on 10/06/2009. However bylaws (the document where is indicated sphere of business of the company) of the opponent were registered on 15/06/2009. Thus the Bureau decided that the opponent’s mark „Investuotojų asociacija“ didn‘t have priority against the opposed trademark on it‘s application date.
Decision’s date: 07/12/2010

***

Number of opposition: 2505
Grounds for the opposition: Article 7.1.2 of the Lithuanian law on Trademarks (Registration of a mark shall be declared invalid if the mark is: <...>identical with or similar to the earlier mark and because of the identity or similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier mark.)
The opponent: TOMS GRUPPEN A/S  
The applicant: UAB „DEILENA“  
Opponent’s trademark:
CTM reg. No. 003509221 “BONBON” (fig)

 
Opposed trademark: National registration No. 60954 “BON BON” (w)
Classes in question: 30 v. 30
Ruling:  Granted totally. The opposed trademark is confusingly similar to the earlier trademark, thus it’s registration is cancelled.
Decision’s date: 18/08/2010


***
Number of opposition: 2392
Grounds for the opposition: Article 7.3 of the Lithuanian law on Trademarks (Registration of the mark may be declared invalid where it becomes evident that the application for the registration of a mark was made in bad faith by the applicant.)
The opponent: Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc.   
The applicant: P.R.S. Mediterranean LTD
Opponent’s trademark:
Many “GEOWEB” trademark registrations, except in Lithuania or EU
Opposed trademark: National registration No. 58419 “GEOWEB” (w)
Classes in question: 19 v. 19
Ruling:  Granted fully. The opposed trademark was registered in bad faith: the applicant knew about trademarks of the opponent, since the opponent granted a license to use the trademark to the applicant. The opponent never gave permission to the applicant for registration of the identical trademark for identical and similar goods of class 19. The Bureau also relied on practice of OHIM’s “BAD FAITH CASE STUDY” (http://oami.europa.eu/).
Decision’s date: 07/09/2010

Number of opposition: 2448
Grounds for the opposition: Article 7.1.2 of the Lithuanian law on Trademarks (Registration of a mark shall be declared invalid if the mark is: <...>identical with or similar to the earlier mark and because of the identity or similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier mark.)
The opponent: F&C Asset Management Plc
The applicant:Dmitrij Dolgin
Opponent’s trademark:

CTM reg. No. 002062909 “REO” (w)

Opposed trademark: National registration No. 59734 “REO LT” (fig) http://www.vpb.lt/db/img/2008/2008_1674.gif

Classes in question: 36 v. 36 and 41
Ruling:  Granted partially. The opposed trademark is confusingly similar to the earlier trademark, thus it’s registration is cancelled, however only regarding services of class 36. Opposition regarding class 41 was dismissed.  
Decision’s date: 03/08/2010