 |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
| | | | | | |
We are offering you a summarized review of opposition cases considered by
the Lithuanian Appeal Board and published in the of the Lithuanian PTO Official
Bulletin. We hope that this review will help you to get an idea of the current
decision-making approaches of the Lithuanian Appeal Board.
Opposition cases are considered during oral hearings, where both parties produce
their arguments and evidences and the Board makes its decisions weighing up
the arguments of both parties. Local applicants or holders of marks are allowed
to participate without a professional representative, while foreign applicants
or holders not having residence in the European Community have to appoint
a local representative (attorney).
For your convenience we have divided the cases into some groups. Where an
opposition was based on more than one ground we chose the most important one
but also mentioned the other motives for opposing.
I. Confusing similarity of marks
A. Word mark v word
mark
· in
relation to goods in class 5
· in
relation to goods in other classes
B.
Word mark v word and device mark
C.
Device mark v word and device mark
D.
Word and device mark v word mark
E.
Word and device mark v word and device mark
II. Similarity of goods and
services
III. Geographical indications
and geographical names
IV. Similarity of trademarks
to trade names
V. Inherent non-distinctiveness
A.
Ex Parte cases
B.
Inter Partes cases
VI. Marks contrary to morality
VII. Well-known marks
VIII. Colours
IX Personal names
X. Genericism
XI. Other earlier rights
and bad faith
 |
INTELS-LITHUANIA |