Application of Protection against Unfair Competition in the Presence of the Likelihood of Confusion of Trade Marks and Company Names

• Authors: Ina Lisinskaitė

Abstracts

EN

Legal protection against unfair competition in the event of using identical or similar trade marks and company names, when their use may mislead consumers, is a necessary legislative measure in order to ensure effective business competition and consumers' economic benefit. This article analyses the theoretical and practical issues of legal protection against unfair competition relating to the confusing use of trade marks and company names. The issues address the requirements for signs within the scope of protection, an analysis of the likelihood of confusion and evaluation criteria and circumstances.

Keywords

EN

unfair competition; confusing uses; trade marks; company names; legal protection

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Issues of Business and Law
• Year: 2011
• Volume: 3
• Pages: 134-144

Contributors

author

Ina Lisinskaitė

• Intellectual Property Group, International Business School of Vilnius University, V. A. Graičiūno str. 8, LT-02241 Vilnius, Lithuania

References

• BMW v Deenik, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 23 February 1999, Case No. C-63/97, ECR I-905.
• Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 29 September 1998, Case No. C-39/97, ECR I-5507.
• Celine SARL v Celine SA, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 11 September 2007, Case No. C-17/06.
• CNL-SUCAL v HAG GF (HAG II), Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 17 October 1990, Case No. C-10/89, ECR I-3711.
• Danish company "Kirkbi A/S" v UAB "Legosta", Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 27 March 2006, Case No. 3K-3-209.
• Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (codified version).Official Journal, 2008 L 299/25.
• Gut Springenheide GmbH and Rudolf Tusky v Oberkreisdirector des Kreeises Steifurt - Amt fur Lebensmitteluberwachung, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 16 July 1998, Case No. C-210/96.
• Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Centrafarm, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 23 May 1978, Case No. 102/77, ECR 1139.
• Kamperman, S. A. (1997).Unfair Competition Law: The Protection of Intellectual and Industrial Creativity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Kaul GmbH v OHIM and Atlantic Richfield Co., Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 25 March 2009, Case No. T-402/07 (PIT).
• Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Competition.Official Gazette, No. 30-856, 1999.
• Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Trade Marks.Official Gazette, No. 92-2844, 2000.
• Lehmann, M. (1989). Property and intellectual property - Property rights as restriction on competition in furtherance of competition. IIC, 1-15.
• Libertel Groep BV v Benelux - Merkenbureau, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 6 May 2003, Case No. C-104/01, ECR I-3793.
• Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 22 June 1999, Case No. C-342/97.
• L'Oréal SA v OHIM, Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009, Case No. T-21/07 (PIT)
• Loughlan, P. (2005). Trade marks: arguments in a continuing contest.I.P.Q., 3, 294-308.
• Mag Instrument Inc. v OHIM, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 7 October 2004, Case No. C-136/02, ECR I-0000.
• Martino, T.; Ullah, W. (1989). The quality guarantee function of trade marks: an economic viewpoint.EIPR, 8, 267-269.
• Menell, P. S. (2000). Intellectual property: General theories. Encyclopaedia of Law and Economics. Vol II:Civil Law and Economics(pp. 129-188). London: MPG Books Ltd.
• Mikulis, J.; Ruževičius, J. (2009). Management systems and competitiveness of a country - Lithuanian context.Current Issues of Business and Law, 3, 26-46.
• Philips v Remington, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 18 June 2002, Case No. C-299/99, ECR I-5475.
• Posner, R. (1998).The Jurisprudence of Scepticism.Chikago: Mich Law Review.
• Protection against Unfair Competition: Analysis of the Present World Situation. (1994). Geneva: WIPO, p. 86.
• Ruževičiūtė, R.; Ruževičius, J. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity evaluation model: the improvement research.Current Issues of Business and Law, 5(2), 369-386. doi:10.5200/1822-9530.2010.18
• SABEL BV v Puma AG and Rudolf Dassler Sport, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 11 October 1997, Case No. C-251/95, ECR I-6191.
• UAB "AAA" v The State Patent Bureau of the Republic of Lithuania, Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 15 April 2002 in civil case No. 3K-3-569/2002.
• UAB "Baldų centras" v UAB "Neiseris", Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 22 June 2009 in civil case No. 3K-3-272/2009.
• UAB "Balionų šalis" v UAB "Vilbalas", Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 8 September 2004 in civil case No. 3K-3-408/2004.
• UAB "Boslita and Ko" v UAB "Itaina", Ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania of 21 November 2005 in civil case No. 2A-372/2005.
• UAB "Kilminė" v AB "Vilniaus prekyba" et al, Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 15 April 2004 in civil case No. 3K-3-483/2004.
• UAB "Rasa" et al v R. Degutienės II "Kertupis", Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, 1 October 2001 in civil case No. 3K-3-875/2001.
• UAB "Traidenis" v UAB "Freliksnavis", Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 24 November 2009 in civil case No. 3K-3-519/2009.
• UAB Restoranų grupė "Fortas" v AB "Ragutis", Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 25 June 2008 in civil case No. 3K-3-160/2008.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10088-011-0010-8