Region: Lithuania

In <i>Sanofi-Sythélabo v Egis Gyogyszergyar RT</i>, the District Court of Vilnius has ordered the cancellation of the defendant's LODIGREL mark on the grounds that it was confusingly similar to the international non-proprietary name Clopidogrel for a certain type of pharmaceutical product. This is the first time that the district court has used such grounds to cancel a trademark registration.

02 July 2004

The Lithuanian Trademark Office is now accepting international applications filed through the Madrid Protocol by foreign companies that have either an office or a subsidiary in Lithuania. This change of practice may enable non-Lithuanian companies that have difficulties obtaining international registrations in their home country to register international marks in Lithuania, in particular in view of the Lithuanian Trademark Office's liberal application procedures.

28 April 2004

The Supreme Court of Lithuania has issued two rulings that establish the basic principles regarding the protection of well-known trademarks in Lithuania. The court held for instance that a trademark does not have to be the best known mark for the goods and services to which it applies to be considered well known.

27 February 2004

In <i>HD Lee Company Inc v UAB Mita</i>, the Supreme Court of Lithuania has ruled that the provisions of Article 9 of the Paris Convention, which deal with the seizure of goods in transit, are optional in nature and do not prohibit customs authorities from seizing goods in transit. The court also confirmed that parties that are simply transporting counterfeit goods can still be found guilty of infringing trademark rights.

04 February 2004

In upholding an Appeal Court ruling to invalidate a trademark registration on the grounds of unfair competition, the Supreme Court has, for the first time, directly applied the Paris Convention to a case without also supporting its findings with local law. It stated that although the lower court's conclusion was correct, it should not have included references to Lithuania's Law on Competition in its reasoning.

01 August 2003

In <i>Japan Tobacco Inc v Schrader-Bridgeport International Inc</i>, the Lithuanian District Court for Vilnius has ruled that although the plaintiff's CAMEL mark is well known in Lithuania, it cannot order the cancellation of the defendant's registration of the same mark for different goods.

22 May 2003

Lithuania's Patent Office has issued what appear to be contradictory decisions in cases involving the registration of the trademarks ZIGULINIS and VILNIAUS ZIGULINIS by one brewery and GUBERNIJOS ZIGULINIS by a competitor brewery. Even though it decided that the mark ZIGULINIS is distinctive, it allowed both breweries to register the similar marks.

10 April 2003

In <i>Stada Arzneimittel AG v Nestra Limited</i>, Lithuania's Court of Appeal has, for the first time, affirmed a district court's decision that a UK company's registration of the trademark PFEIL ZAHNSCHMERTZ-TABLETTEN is invalid on the grounds of unfair competition.

16 January 2003