In a few opposition cases where the opponents claimed their marks to be well-known, the Board rejected the claims since the fame of the marks has not been proved before the court, and the LR PTO Appeal Board is not a competent body to make decisions on the fame of a mark. However in some of the cases the Board took into account a high reputation and fame of marks, particularly in deciding on registrability of marks when the examiner's refusal or an opposition by a third party against absolute requirements. There have been instances when the Board took into consideration reputation of an earlier mark in similarity cases.
Below we are providing the summaries of two more decisions. One of them was actually the only opposition case on the grounds of similarity to a well-known registered mark for similar goods (goods in class 34) where prior to the opposition there had already been a relevant court judgement. The second opposition involved an earlier mark registered for dissimilar goods but claimed to be well-known without a prior court decision recognizing renown of the mark.

1)

Opposing Mark	Opposed Mark

Philip Morris Lietuva filed an opposition against registration of four word-figurative marks PRIMA (the pictures of a cigarette packages with the word PRIMA) in the name of Reemstma Ukraine. The opponent's and opposed marks related to goods in class 34. The opposition was based on similarity to the opponent's earlier similar marks and on similarity to the opponent's well-known mark. The Board stated that one of the opponent's marks (registered for "cigarettes") had been recognized to be well-known by a court judgement. The Board further noted that in all the marks under consideration the dominating element was the word "PRIMA". The Board found the opposed marks similar to the opponent's word-figurative marks and the opponent's well-known word mark. The opposition was upheld in full and the four opposed marks were invalidated.

2) ESCADA AG filed an opposition against registration of the word-figurative trademark ESCADA. The opponent was the holder of earlier ESCADA trademarks in Lithuania in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25. Considering the opposition based on renown of the earlier mark the Board noted that this fact had not been proved before the court and for this reason this ground for opposition was rejected.
The opposed trademark registration remained in force.

Home   |    About us   |   Our services   |   Legislation   Recent cases   |   Forms   |   FAQ   |   How to find us

INTELS-LITHUANIA