 |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
| | | | | | |
1) AB Zalsvytis (LT), a local brewery, opposed to registration of the mark
BIRZIECIU for beer in the name of UAB Birzu alus (LT). The opposition was based
on the ground of inherent non-distinctiveness of the mark, since it was an adjective
- a derivative from the geographical name "Birzai". The opponent alleged
that the place was connected with the production of beer and the adjective used
in the mark designated a particular type of beer traditional for that particular
place. The Board supported the opposition and the application was rejected.
In its decision the Board quoted an earlier decision of the Lithuanian Supreme
Court on a similar case, where the Supreme court noted that the term "the
place of origin of goods" referred not only to the geographical name as
such, but also to its derivative forms.
2) VARGA Boraszati es Asvanyviz Kft (HU) and EGRI Borvidek Hegykozsegi Tanasca
(HU) opposed to registration of the mark EGRI BIKAVER in the name of the Lithuanian
applicant "Mineraliniai Vandenys" in relation to alcoholic drinks
in class 33. The opposition was based on absolute requirements (lack of distinctiveness,
descriptiveness of the type of goods and false indication of the place of origin)
as well as on the provisions of the Lithuanian Law concerning indications of
origin. It was shown that the word "Egri" corresponds to the name
of a town in Hungary. The second word ("bull's blood") is a type of
well-known type of red wine. The Board took into consideration a bilateral agreement
between Lithuania and Hungary on Free Trade, that includes provisions for protection
of IP and geographical indications in particular. The Hungarian law protects
EGRI BIKAVER as a geographical indication and establishes that this type of
wine can only be produced in Egri region.. The applicant had no relation to
the region where the wine is produced. The Board satisfied the opposition and
registration of the opposed mark was revoked.
3) Vilnuas Duona, LT - a Lithuanian bakery - filed an appeal seeking to reverse
the examiner's refusal to register a word-figurative mark comprising the name
of the company and the device of Eiffel Tower in Paris. The examiner noted that
the device of a well-known tower can mislead the public as to the origin of
goods. The Board upheld the examiner's decision and registration of the mark
was refused.
4) Spirits International, AN filed an appeal seeking to reverse the examiner's
refusal to register the mark MOSKOVSKAYA MASKVETISKA ?????????? (a derivative
of the word "Moscow") in relation to vodka. The Board upheld the examiner's
decision and registration of the mark was refused on the grounds that it could
mislead the public as to the place of origin of the goods. Besides the Board
found that the word, designating a type of the product, should be left free
for other manufacturers of vodka in Moscow.
5) The Coca-Cola Company, based on its earlier registration of the mark URGE opposed to registration of the mark URIAGE in the name of a French applicant. The Board rejected the opposition. The Board found that the word URIAGE stands for the name of a place in France. Consequently the board found the marks different by connotation. Besides, the marks were found dissimilar to the ear, because pronounced in English (URGE) and in French (URIAGE) they would sound differently. The Board concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion even among those Lithuanian consumers who know none of these foreign languages - the difference in the length of the words was found to be sufficient to exclude confusion.
6) A/S RIGAS VINI (LV) filed an appeal against the examiner's refusal to register
the mark "RIGAS SAMPANIETIS" for "alcoholic drinks including
sparkling wines". The examiner's refusal was grounded on the misleading
character of the mark incorporating a geographical indication. The Board upheld
the examiner's decision and did not allow the mark for registration, noting
that the first word stood for the name of the Latvian capital and it would not
mislead the public about the origin of the goods because the applicant was a
Latvian resident. However the second word was a Latvian equivalent for the name
of a province in France (Champagne) and would be a deceptive geographical indication.
7)
The same applicant as above filed an appeal against the examiner's refusal to register the word-figurative mark "Golden Soviet Champagne" in Cyrillic (a label) for "alcoholic drinks including sparkling wines". The examiner's refusal was grounded on the deceptive character of the mark incorporating a geographical indication. The applicant argued that the word "champagne" could not be misleading about the origin of goods because that word had long been used in the Lithuanian territory to designate sparkling wines. The Board totally rejected such argumentation and stressed that the word "Champagne" can only be used for wines from the French province with such a name. The Board further noted that other words on the label. i.e. "Produced in Latvia" made the mark still more deceptive. The appeal was rejected and the mark was not allowed for registration.
8) A US applicant filed an appeal against the examiner's refusal to register
the word mark "BUDWEISER" for "beer". The examiner refused
to grant protection on the grounds of descriptiveness and on the misleading
character of the mark with regard to the place of origin of the goods. Motivating
the refusal the examiner noted that the word BUDWEISER had derived from the
word BUDWEIS that had been the name of a Czech town. The Board noted that a
mark shall not be registered if it is exclusively descriptive. The previous
Lithuanian trademark Law (that was in force when the application was filed and
in accordance with which the appeal was to be considered) did not contain interpretation
of the concept "place of origin of goods". The new Law on TM provides
interpretation of the terms "geographical indication" ("...a
place name or other word or sign which directly or indirectly identifies a good
as originating in a certain territory, region or locality, where a given quality,
reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to
its geographical origin") and "geographical origin" ("...a
country, territory, region or locality according to which the true place of
origin of a good or service may be identified"). The word BUDWEISER does
not identify a territory, a region or a particular place. It is a derivative
of the word BUDWEIS, which in German stood for a name of a place that was in
Czechia - Ceske Budejovice. The latter is the exact name of the place. Consequently,
the word BUDWEISER may be considered as conveying indirect information about
the place of origin, but it cannot be considered to be exclusively descriptive.
The Board further noted that since descriptiveness and deceptiveness are interconnected,
the same arguments may be applied to the second ground for refusal - deceptiveness.
Since the word does not stand for the exact name of the place it is not deceptive.
The appeal against the examiner's refusal was upheld and the mark in the name
of a US holder was allowed for registration.
 |
INTELS-LITHUANIA |