I N T E L S - L I T H U A N I A

Word mark v word mark in relation to other (than class 5) goods and services

1) Ferrero S.p.A. (IT) - the holder of the word TIC TAC mark for a wide range of goods in class 30 opposed to registration of two trademarks TIK TAU (a word and a word-and-device marks) for chocolates in the name of the local confectionary Ruta. The Board did not find the marks confusingly similar. The decision was motivated by the semantic difference of the marks (the Lithuanian phrase TIK TAU stands for "only for you"), which created a sufficient difference in the overall perception and excluded the risk of confusing the consumer.

2) Ferrero S.p.A. (IT) - the holder of three KINDER word marks (in Latin and Cyrillic) in relation to goods in classes 29, 30, 32 and services in classes 41 and 42 opposed to territorial extension to Lithuania of International registration of the word mark KINDERPUNKT (Cyrillic) in relation to goods in classes 05, 30 (sweetmeats, particularly multi-vitamin sweets) and 32 (fruit juices, particularly multi-vitamin fruit juices). The Board took into consideration the fact that the opponent had a number of registrations of marks incorporating the word KINDER. The marks were found similar, similarity being created by the semantically meaningful word KINDER at the beginning of the opposed mark, however the opposition was satisfied only in part. The Board did not find the risk of confusing in relation to goods 5, for which the opponent's marks had not been registered and the opposed mark was granted protection in relation to these goods. Territorial extension of the opposed mark to Lithuania was refused in relation to goods in classes 30 and 32.

3) Stora Enso Publication Paper AG (DE) based on an earlier registration of the word mark Exopress opposed to territorial extension to Lithuanian of international registration of the word mark Xpress in the name of Sappi Netherlands B.V. (NL). Both marks related to goods in class 16. The opponent's mark was registered in relation to "paper, cardboard and goods made from paper and cardboard. The opposed mark related to "printing paper (without pre-printing)". The Board found the goods similar, since the range of goods in the opponent's mark overlapped those in the opposed mark. The marks were found confusingly similar. Overall visual and particularly phonetic similarity of the marks was created by the influence of the repeated elements "press" and the letter "x". Though the words were coined and did not have a particular meaning, the meaningful part "-press" created similar semantic associations. The opposition was satisfied and the opposed mark was refused protection in Lithuania.

4) Reemstma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH (DE) , holder of an earlier mark CAMPUS for goods in class 34, opposed to registration of the mark CAMUS in relation to goods in classes 14, 25, 34. The Board found the marks similar to the eye and to the ear because they differed only in one letter and /or sound. The Board disregarded the difference in connotation of the words assuming that the majority of Lithuanian consumers would perceive them as coined words. However the Board's finding about confusing similarity of the marks concerned only goods in class 34. Goods in class 14, though they had some relation to smoking ("various smoker's articles made of precious metals") are not designated for every-day consumption and are sold through different trade channels, for this reason no likelihood of confusion was found in relation to these goods. The Board disregarded the defendant's proof of reputation of the opposed mark for alcoholic drinks because the submitted materials proved reputation in relation to goods different from those considered in the opposition case, besides, the evidences submitted "were not directly connected with fame of the opposed mark among Lithuanian consumers". Based on the findings the Board refused registration of the opposed mark in class 34 however allowed registration in classes 14 and 25.

5) The holder of the mark SERGIO ROSSI relating inter alia to footwear in class 25 opposed to registration of the mark ROSS for clothes. The marks were found to be not confusingly similar. Firstly, they are dissimilar by the overall impression. Secondly, because they relate to different goods - clothes and footwear. See also opposition SERGIO ROSSI v. GINO ROSSI in PERSONAL NAMES sector where the marks were found similar in relation to footwear.

6) The holder of the mark ANTARCTICA for non-alcoholic beverages opposed to registration of ARCTICA for goods in classes 29, 30, 32. The opposition was filed only against registration in class 32. Though the opposed mark was not an exclusively word mark: it was presented in a specific script on a black background - the device elements were found to be not particularly distinctive and were disregarded. The marks were found to be confusingly similar. When considering conceptual similarity, the Board noted that both words stand for polar zones. They are just antonyms creating similar associations. They are also similar visually and phonetically. Thus the marks were found to be confusingly similar with regard to goods in class 32 and the opposed registration was invalidated.

7) The holder of the mark PAUKSTE (Lithuanian for "bird") opposed to registration of LAIMES PAUKSTE (Lithuanian for "bird of fortune"). Both marks were registered for similar goods in class 30. Firstly, the Board noted that both words in the opposed mark are nouns and have an equal impact on the overall perception. The finding of conceptual dissimilarity was motivated by different "semantic shading", because the phrase in the opposed mark had a metaphorical meaning. Visually and phonetically the marks are dissimilar because they consist of one and two words accordingly, the repeated word PAUKSTE being at the end of the opposed mark. Thus, the marks were found to be dissimilar by the overall perception and the opposition was rejected.

8) The holder of the mark PIANO opposed to registration of PIANOLA. The earlier mark was registered for goods in class 30, while the opposed mark - in classes 29 and 30. During the hearing the opponent withdrew opposition against registration in class 29 and the opposition was considered only with regard to goods in class 30. The earlier mark was registered for various types of coffee, chocolate, chocolate beverages, cocoa, tea, etc. The opposed mark was registered for "puddings, also with added cream or sauces; desserts (included in this class), particularly groats, also with added sauces". The Board found the goods dissimilar by the outlook and "sales conditions". The marks were also found dissimilar. There was found an evident visual difference in the length of the words. Besides, the additional letters in the opposed mark change the pronunciation of the word. The word "piano" is quoted in the Lithuanian Dictionary of International Words with the meaning of "quiet, not loud". The opposed mark means a musical instrument. The Board noted that though in English both words may stand for a musical instrument, regard should firstly be taken of the meaning of the word in Lithuanian. Besides, even if both are regarded as musical instruments they stand for different instruments. Thus, with consideration to the findings about dissimilarity of goods and marks the opposition was rejected.

Opposing Mark	Opposed Mark

The holder of the mark CAMELIA opposed to registration of CAMEA in relation to identical and similar goods in class 30. Though the marks were not exclusively word marks and both incorporated device elements, colours, different typefaces, the Board found these features to be not important (either descriptive or not much distinctive) for the overall impression and compared only the words. The Board noted that the visual and phonetic difference in the middle was not prominent. The opposer insisted that both could be associated with the name of a flower "camellia". However, as the Board noted, there was submitted no evidence in proof of such consumer's perception of the words and they were compared as coined words. The marks were found similar and the opposed mark was invalidated.

10) The holder of the mark CAMELIA (the same as in the opposition above) opposed to registration of AMELIA in relation to identical and similar goods in classes 03, 05 and 16. With the exception of the first letter the opposed mark fully repeated the earlier mark. Besides, the opponent submitted evidence in proof of conceptual similarity. Though none of the words exists in Lithuanian, both stand for flowers in other languages: "camellia" in English or "camelia" in French and "amellus" in Latin (the latter stands for "aster") - which makes them conceptually similar. The marks were found to be similar by the overall perception and the opposed mark was invalidated.

INTELS-LITHUANIA