Opposition against SPICE No. M 72 284 – a trademark of GRIGORIUS HOLDINGS

PĒTERSONA PATENTS – AAA LAW has successfully represented interests of the Latvian company TIRDZNIECĪBAS CENTRS PLESKODLE, SIA in opposition proceedings before the Industrial Property Board of Appeal of the Republic of Latvia. The company operates a shopping mall “Spice” which is one of the biggest of its kind in Latvia. Likewise it is a proprietor of several registered word and figurative marks for “SPICE” in Latvia.

The opposition was directed against a word mark “SPICE” in the name of GRIGORIUS HOLDINGS, SIA, a business entity linked with the infamous trademark troll Michael Gleissner.

In one part the opposition relied on grounds of likelihood of confusion between the contested trademark and opponent’s marks. However, the contested mark covered different classes of goods and services from opponent’s marks, therefore it was necessary to additionally rely upon the ground of “SPICE” being well-known in Latvia, to successfully oppose the entire contested registration.

As a result, it was firstly required to prove that “SPICE” had become well-known in Latvia with respect to identical or similar goods or services and that the contested registration, being an imitation of “SPICE”, is liable to confuse consumers. This was demonstrated by evidence on investments and extent of marketing activities undertaken by the opponent.

Secondly, it had to be shown that consumers may perceive use of those goods and services which were covered by the contested registration, but not by prior rights to be indicative of a connection between them and the opponent and that such connection serves to be detrimental to opponent’s interests. Considering that “SPICE” has been actively marketed locally, it was demonstrated that consumers may associate with the well-known mark even those goods and services that are not covered by opponent’s marks but are available to them in the shopping mall “Spice”, resulting in detriment to opponent’s interests by possible dilution of well-known mark.

Thus the mark “SPICE”, which by itself has a high acquired distinctiveness, as a well-known mark in Latvia, is entitled to the widest protection affordable. Moreover, taking note of the aforementioned opponent’s considerations it was also argued that the applicant could not be unaware of the opponent who is the proprietor of an identical mark, thus serving as a basis for proving that applicant had acted in bad-faith when registering the contested mark.

The client was represented by the managing partner Gatis Meržvinskis and the junior associate Toms Lintiņš.

Related news

Considering the global pandemic crisis caused by Covid-19 in Latvia and worldwide, the confinement seriously affects, burdens or makes it physically impossible for right holders of industrial property to meet procedural deadlines and…

We expect the UK to leave the EU on 31 December 2020.

The date of 31.12.2020 is crucial to those entrepreneurs who have business or to those who are willing to have business in the UK. Given the worldwide crisis due to COVID-19, this period is…

On 24 February, 2020 the Board of Appeal of Industrial Property examined the opposition filed in the name of the Swiss company OMEGA SA (OMEGA AG) (OMEGA LTD.) against the Latvian trademark registration No. M 73 990 “OMEGA”. The opposition was…

In order to provide you with the best possible browsing experience we uses cookies. To accept our cookie policy please click „Accept“ button or continue to the site. Leaving the site will be interpreted as not accepting the policy. You can always revoke this authorization by changing setting in your browser and deleting the cookies.