Latest news

Always up to date

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

To continue the topic on trademarks after dissolution of a company in Latvia, it is proposed to consider the practical case concerning the Latvian trademark No. M 45 949 Latgales alus.

The trademark was registered on 20 May 2000.[1]

On 20 August 2013 the trademark assignment from its owner, a New Zealand company Mirtex Global Corporation Limited (hereinafter - Mirtex), to Alexander D., a natural person from Daugavpils (LV) was registered.[2] The ground for the trademark assignment registration was a Deed of Assignment dated 9 July 2013.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Patent Attorney Olga Vahatova will participate in the XXI Annual Scientific Practical Conference PETERSBURG COLLEGIATE READINGS – 2019. The subject of the conference is “Intellectual property: theory and practice”. Olga will present the practical issues of the invalidation of Registered Community Designs. The conference will take place on 26-28 June 2019 in Saint Petersburg, Russia.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

The implementation of Moneyval recommendations this year resulted in the liquidation of risky companies. In the first weeks of 2019, the number of liquidated companies exceeded 7000, which is not only more than a year before, but even more than several years together. In the beginning of this year, the Register of Enterprises made the automated removal of non-active companies from the Commercial Register.[1] While the procedure provides publication of an announcement about the suspension of company activity and an invitation to appoint a liquidator, only a few companies applied for “normal” managed liquidation.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Administrative liability for violation of intellectual property rights is regulated by the Latvian Administrative Violations Code (hereinafter – LAPK, from Latvian - Latvijas Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss). The LAPK contains only four provisions that provide for administrative liability for violation of intellectual property rights, including Articles 166.14 and 166.17. Both provisions concern administrative violations in the area of ​​consumers’ rights protection. The administrative violation specified in Article 166.14 of the LAPK is the offering or sale of counterfeit goods. Article 166.17 of the LAPK describes the administrative violation as the use of a trademark, other distinctive marks for goods and services, or designs, the counterfeiting of the mark, the use or distribution of a counterfeit mark. These are blanket rules and applicable in conjunction with special laws in the field of intellectual property. The law does not provide a definition of "counterfeit goods". The explanation of the term is also not provided by the Law on Trademarks. In the article, the author studies the Latvian laws in conjunction with European Union and international regulation and case law in order to find out the explanation of the term “counterfeit goods” in the meaning of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code.

(in Latvian; English translation to follow)

User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active

A new regional trademark registration is anticipated after 2020 when the Agreement on Trademarks, Service Marks and Names of Appellation of Origin of Goods of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) will function in the EAEU member states, i.e., Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia.

Address

P.O. Box 17, Riga LV-1069, Latvia
Phone:  +371 2992 2129
Skype:    ip.care
E-mail:    info@ip.care
©2018-2019 ip.care

Search