


1) The interested persons, executors of the Estate of the deceased Princess Diana opposed to registration of the mark LADY DI in the name of a local applicant in relation to "outwear". Though the application for the opposed mark was filed when the previous Lithuanian Law on Trademarks was in force and the opposition was to be considered in accordance with that law, the Board motivated its decision by provisions concerning personal names that are included into the new Law in force. The new Law provides that a mark is not registrable if it is identical or similar to "the name or surname or artistic pseudonym of a famous person, or the portrait of another person ..., except in cases where consent has been granted by the owner of the rights or the successor to them". The fame of Princess Diana is evident. The opponent submitted a report of a consumer survey in proof that the public associates the name "Lady Di" mainly with Princess Diana. The Board also supported the opponent's argument that the mark is deceptive and conveys deceptive information about the manufacturer of the goods. The opposition was satisfied and registration of the opposed mark revoked.
2) TORGOVJ DOM POTOMKOV POSTAVCHTCHIKA DVORA EGO IMPERATORSKOGO VELICHESTVA
P. A. SMIRNOVA (RU) opposed to registration of the word mark SMIRNOVA in the
name of UDV NORTH AMERIKA, INC (US) in relation to alcoholic drinks. The oppositions
was based on the following grounds: 1) the mark lacks distinctiveness; 2) the
mark is deceptive; 3) similar or identical to a name of another person without
that person's consent. The board did not agree that the mark lacked distinctiveness
since it is a surname and personal names in general are allowed for registration
as trademarks. Neither did the Board find the mark deceptive, because it did
not convey any deceptive information about the quality or origin of goods. As
for similarity to another person's name, the Board also (like in the case above)
applied the relevant provisions of the new law, that establish that only the
name of a famous person can be an obstacle for registration of names as trademarks.
The mark SMIRNOVA does not suggest connection to any particular person, the
opponent submitted evidence (Telephone Directory) that this name can frequently
be met not only in Russia but in Lithuania as well. Besides the word SMIRNOVA
can be perceived as the genetic case of a masculine surname or common case of
a feminine surname.
Based on these findings and motivation the opposition was rejected and the opposed
mark allowed for registration.
3) In an opposition based on earlier rights for the mark SERGIO ROSSI for footwear
against registration of the mark GINO ROSSI for goods in classes 18, 25 and
26 the Board found the family name to be the strongest element of the marks
creating a likelihood of confusion. This finding was made with consideration
to use and reputation of the mark in Lithuania evidenced by delivery documents.
For the first time in its decisions the Board disregarded copies from the Internet
in proof of reputation of mark.
4) The examiner refused registration of the word trademark MOZART for alcoholic
drinks in the name of an Austrian holder. Motivating the refusal the examiner
insisted that the trademark would be unable to distinguish the goods of one
manufacturer from the goods of others because it was the name of a well-known
Austrian composer. The applicant filed an appeal. The Board noted that absolute
requirements did not contain any limitations with regard to registration of
personal names as trademarks. A name of a famous person might be a ground for
opposing on relative grounds if the applicant applied for mark incorporating
the name without the famous person's consent, however such relative grounds
could not be the basis for ex-officio refusal of registration, relative grounds
could only be relied on in opposition proceedings initiated by third persons.
Based on these considerations the Board upheld the appeal and the mark was allowed
for registration.

INTELS-LITHUANIA |