EUIPO admits opposition filed by Orkla Latvija, SIA to be successful; rights of one of the most famous confectionary Latvian brands “LAIMA” enforced in class 3
On 29 May, 2020 the Opposition Division of EUIPO examined the opposition filed in the name of the Latvian company Orkla Latvija, SIA against the EUTM application No. 018001757 “LAIMA”. The opposition was filed against the goods in class 3, which includes various hygiene, beauty and cosmetic products. The owner of the contested mark is the Latvian company Laima Cosmetics, SIA. The opposition was based on various verbal and figurative marks “LAIMA” registered in the name of Orkla Latvia, SIA, inter alia, covering various goods in class 3.
reg. No. M 11 131
reg. No. M 39 036
reg. No. M 70 263
| Contested mark:
EUTM No. 018001757
The trademark attorneys Gunta Zariņa and Gatis Meržvinskis represented the opponent Orkla Latvija, SIA in this opposition matter. In fact, the company Orkla Latvija, SIA is considered to be the largest and the most famous producer of Latvian confectionery, sweets and chocolate products and its trademark registrations also cover goods in class 3.
The opposition was based on likelihood of confusion between the marks “LAIMA”, as well as the contested mark of being capable of taking unfair advantage of and causing detriment to the distinctive character and the repute of the earlier trade mark.
The Opposition Division acknowledges that the relevant goods in class 3 are identical, but the degree of attention is considered to be average. Moreover, the decision recognizes that the marks at issue are highly similar:
- visually the marks coincide in the letters “LAIMA”;
- the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of letters “LAIMA”;
- both signs will be perceived as a female given name or the name of the goddess Laima.
Therefore, it is highly conceivable that the relevant public, who has a normal degree of attention, and will also have to rely on its imperfect recollection of the signs, could confuse the signs or believe that the identical goods originate from the same or economically linked undertakings.
Since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR in relation to likelihood of confusion, the Opposition Division supports the fact that there is no need to further examine the other ground of the opposition, namely Article 8(5) EUTM in relation to reputation of the “LAIMA” mark in Latvia.
Orkla Latvija, SIA also had opposed the same trademark registration in Latvia. The written decision of the Latvian Board of Appeal is expected to become available by the end of September this year.