World
Intellectual Property - IP Laws - Lithuania
DECISIONS
OF THE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
1. The Lithuanian court of appeals by the ruling of 27 December,
2006 in civill case No. 2A-479/2006.
Following to the claim of the plaintiffs, Spirits International
N.V. and Spirits Product International Intellectual Property B.V.,
against defendant, Zakrytoe aktsionernoe obschestvo "Gruppa Predpriyatii
OST", the court has decided that the importance of similar elements
(words "STOLNAYA and stolichnaya") in the trademarks compared is
not equal and the graphic elements are not similar also, therefore
marks were found dissimilar. The court has also pointed out, that
the wordy element in the combined trademark not necessarily is the
main and the strong part of the mark which determines the overall
impression of the mark.
2. By the ruling of 27 December, 2006 the Lithuanian court of Appeals
in the civil case no.2A-456/2006 has sustained the decision of Vilnius
district court following to which the claim filed by Spirits Product
International Intellectual Property B.V. against defendant State
Patent Burea of the Republic of Lithuania regarding refusal to register
wordy trademark "MOSKOVSKAYA Nr. 735579" for goods and services
in classes 32, 33 and 35 has been rejected. The court has decided
that the sign MOSKOVSKAYA will be perceived as the significant place-name
and therefore could be associated with place of origin of the mentioned
goods
3. Vilnius district court by the decision of 27 December, 2006 has
rejected the claim filed in the name of Hugo Boss AG against defendants,
Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH and State Patent Bureau, regarding
decision of Section of Appeals No. 486 of 4 September 2002. Vilnius
district court has decided that the appealed decision of Section
of Appeals of State Patent Bureau was well grounded and lawful because
plaintiff's trademark BOSS HUGO BOSS No. 754225 was similar to the
defendant's trademarks BOSS reg. No. 39697 and BOSS LIGHTS reg.
No. 40162 and registered for identical and similar goods in class
34, therefore there exists the likelihood of confusion.
4. By the ruling of 20 December, 2006 in civil case No. 3K-3-669/2006
following to the claim of Nike International Inc. against UAB "Rivona"
The Supreme Court of Lithuania has acknowledged the rule that even
the defendant offers to remove the trademark from the counterfeit
goods when trademark can be easily removed from the counterfeit
goods and such goods could have been given to the charity, the priority
is given for the total destruction of such goods because the person
giving such charity (owner of counterfeit goods) would be excused
from the part of taxes, therefore would have economic benefit, what
contradicts to the Council Regulation No. 1383/2003. The court has
confirmed once again that the question of fault is not important
when the protective measures are applied.
II. OTHER NEWS
1. Statistics of the registration of intellectual property rights
in Lithuania in 2006.
In 2006, there were filed 2457 national trademark applications (2019
of them - by the Lithuanian applicants), 99 patent applications
(65 of them - by the Lithuanian applicants) and 32 national design
applications (by the Lithuanian applicants - 21).
2. Destruction of counterfeit goods.
On 24 November, 2006, 19510 empty bottles for perfumes bearing mark
BRITNEY were destroyed in the territorial customs of Klaipeda.
On 28 December, 2006 in the same territorial customs of Klaipeda
there were destroyed 264 t-shirts and 29 belts bearing mark DIESEL.
III. RECENT CHANGES IN IP LAW
On December 27, 2006 new edition of the regulations "On the grant
of permission to use the name of Lithuania in the name of the legal
entity, in the name of the branch of the legal entity or in its
representative's name" adopted by the decision No. 587 of the Lithuanian
Republic government on May 14, 2004 entered to force.
According to the new edition of the regulations there are two main
changes:
* it will not be allowed to use the name of Lithuania in the names
of legal entities in other languages than in Lithuanian only, and
* the permission
to use the name of Lithuania in the name of legal entities could
only be granted just to the legal entities which have already been
operating, except the cases when the branch of well known foreign
legal entity of other organization or its representative is established,
also if the legal entities are established in which the names this
foreign legal entity or other organization name is used.
In October 31, 2006 the Law on amendment and addendum of the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania on Copyright and Neighboring Rights
entered into force.
Amendment of the law was conditioned by necessity to harmonize the
law with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit
of the author of an original work and with Directive 2004/48/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on
the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Article 17 of the Law was one of the articles, which were changed
fundamentally. The article regulates re-sail of rights to fine art
original manuscript. Former edition of the law set off fixed 5 percent
portion, which was paid for the re-sail of work or original manuscript,
if they cost not less than 500 Litas. The new edition of the law
not only specified, who has an obligation to pay a royalty to the
authors (showrooms, art galleries, museums, antiquarians, etc.),
but also differentiates payment of the royalty from 5 to 0.25 percent,
depending on price of the re-sailed work or manuscript original.
According to the new edition of the article, the royalty is paid,
if the price after tax is not less than 300 Euro. However the royalty
for one work or manuscript original can not exceed 12500 Euro.
For any
queries relating to our services and costs, please feel free to
contact us at info@iprfirm.com.
IPR
FIRM.COM - Online IPR Law Firm, India – Trade Marks, Copyright Registration,
Delhi, India
| | |
(c) IPR Firm, 2007.
|
