Welcome to our latest newsletter, where we share the latest developments in the world of intellectual property from Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

Estonia:

Lithuania:

Latvia:

Estonia

Protecting the Estonian language in the age of AI

Minister Pakosta recently sparked discussion with her proposal to support the Estonian language in artificial intelligence systems. She suggested that Estonia should provide Estonian-language content free of charge to major AI companies, such as those developing large language models. The aim is to ensure that Estonian language remains usable and visible in future digital environments, where AI tools increasingly shape communication and information access. According to Pakosta, this step is essential for the long-term survival of the language in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

The proposal highlights the growing intersection of language policy and digital innovation, underscoring the importance of proactive measures to secure the presence of smaller languages like Estonian in global AI development. As AI technologies continue to advance, strategic decisions made today may play a crucial role in preserving linguistic diversity for future generations.

A recent campaign video reminiscent of The Simpsons sparked debate: if your ad mimics a famous animation style – in this case, yellow skin, suburban vibe, familiar gestures – is that OK legally? Helery Maidlas shared key takeaways from the case of using AI to re-create iconic styles.

  • The law protects expression, not style. So using a similar drawing style might be allowed, but if it’s too recognisable, it could cross into “derivative work” territory, for which permission is needed.
  • Could the parody exception apply? Possibly, but only if the ad clearly pokes fun at the original or offers social commentary. If it’s just copying the vibe to get attention, it’s not likely to qualify.
  • Content being made by AI isn’t in itself a loophole. The user behind the AI remains responsible for any rights violations.
  • Trade marks and brand identity also matter. If viewers may think your ad is connected to Fox or Disney, you risk misleading advertising or unfair competition claims.
  • The bottom line: A nod to a particular style might be legal, but when it comes to iconic franchises, even just giving a wink can be risky. When in doubt, go for inspiration, not imitation.

For more details, you can read the full article (in Estonian) here.

At the Tallinn Music Week Conference, Sorainen’s delegation (Marian Moldau, Helery Maidlas, Olivia Kranich and Vladislav Leiri) hosted a legal clinic dedicated to music industry and copyrights. The idea was simple: anyone could walk in and ask legal questions with no sign-up or cost involved. We had great conversations with artists, managers, music tech founders, and other industry professionals. Most questions came down to a few core things:

· how to properly document your rights and make sure they’re enforceable

· how to avoid infringing copyrights when your business model involves using existing material

· how to set up transparent and fair relationships between co-founders and collaborators right from the start

It was great to see how people in the music industry are thinking more than ever about addressing legal matters early on instead of waiting for problems to arise. It’s also exciting to see how much the music tech scene is evolving in Estonia, with initiatives like TechTrack by Music Estonia supporting growth and innovation in the industry.

Lithuania

Trade mark “ŠEŠKĖS” survives challenge over language rules

On 30 August 2024, the public entity TV komanda submitted a request to the Appeals Division seeking to invalidate trade mark registration No. 91590, for “ŠEŠKĖS” (the English translation would be “SIXTHS”). The trade mark covers entertainment services under Class 41, including concerts and performances. The trade mark matter in question is related to a wider dispute over trade marks pertaining to the 2000s Lithuanian band 69 Danguje (in English, “69 in the Sky”).

Relying on existing case law, TV komanda argued that the term “ŠEŠKĖS” contradicts public order and good morals. They claimed that the word is grammatically incorrect since it is a foreignism, and thus it is inappropriate for use in a registered trade mark.

The State Patent Bureau reviewed the application and found that the mark had already passed expert evaluation and met the legal requirements. It noted that “ŠEŠKĖS” can be interpreted in multiple ways (e.g., as the plural form of “female ferret”) and that language purity alone does not constitute a legal ground for invalidation. TV komanda did not provide any evidence proving that consumers would perceive the word element “ŠEŠKĖS” as a foreignism. Additionally, since language oversight rules on foreignisms have been repealed, the claim of grammatical impropriety lacked legal weight.

Concluding that the mark does not carry a vulgar, offensive, or degrading meaning, the Appeals Division dismissed the request. The “ŠEŠKĖS” trademark remains valid. Of course, the decision of the State Patent Bureau can still be appealed against in court.

How patents drive pharmaceutical breakthroughs

Over the last century, the pharmaceutical industry has made remarkable strides, turning once-deadly diseases into manageable conditions, or even eradicating them entirely. This progress has been largely driven by the ability of companies to patent their innovations. As patent attorney Marijus Dingilevskis explains, patents grant the exclusive rights to manufacture and sell a new drug for the following 20 years, creating a temporary monopoly that allows companies to recoup the massive costs of research, development and clinical trials.

This protection encourages bold investment in groundbreaking treatments. Knowing that a discovery can be legally safeguarded gives pharmaceutical companies the confidence to pursue high-risk, high-reward research. The system has enabled the development of vaccines and treatments that have saved millions of lives – like the eradication of smallpox, and diseases such as tuberculosis becoming curable conditions.

At the same time, the patent system can lead to limitations. While exclusivity is intended to support innovation, it may delay the entry of more affordable generic alternatives, potentially affecting access for some patients. There are also cases where companies use legal strategies to extend patent protection beyond the original term, which can reduce competition. These practices, although legal, give rise to ongoing discussions about how to strike the right balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring timely, widespread access to new medicines.

While challenges in pricing and access still exist, the overall impact of the patent system on global health has been overwhelmingly positive. It remains one of the key mechanisms supporting the continued evolution of modern medicine, ensuring that today’s investments lead to tomorrow’s life-saving breakthroughs.

For more details, you can read the full article (in Lithuanian) here.

Latvia

Legendary Latvian rock band LĪVI win trade mark opposition

The Industrial Property Board of Appeal of Latvia upheld the opposition filed by the association LĪVI Roxx, invalidating the trade mark registration LĪVI, owned by Juris Pavītols, a former member of the rock band LĪVI.

The decision recognised that the name of the association was a sufficient basis to declare the trade mark invalid. The key reasons for this decision were the fact that the goods and services of the associated with the contested trade mark were related to the same economic activity sector in which the association LĪVI Roxx operates, and that a significant part of the association`s name was included in the contested trade mark.

This ruling not only found favour with the Latvian public and the band’s fans but also sparked discussions on well-known trade marks, non-registered trade marks and the importance of registering trade marks in order to protect your rights. The decision in this opposition case was made on 12 May 2025 and is still appealable.

The association LĪVI Roxx was represented by Sorainen partner Andris Tauriņš and assistant lawyer Krišjānis Knodze, who both expressed their satisfaction that the band will now continue to delight fans across Latvia under their legendary original name.

When co-ownership goes wrong: lessons from the “Evija” case

In a notable decision, the Industrial Property Board of Appeal invalidated the Latvian trade mark registration “Evija”. This case presented elements rarely analysed in the Board of Appeal’s decisions. The trade mark was applied to goods and services related to the cosmetics and pharmacy industry, and may be considered quite valuable, as the cosmetic product Evija has been known to many generations of Latvians for its potential healing properties. The cosmetic product was developed by inventor Edgars Riņķis back in 1981, and the trade mark dispute arose between the inventor’s heirs.

The Board of Appeal analysed the essence of co-ownership relationships and whether a co-owner of the trade mark can file a new identical trade mark for identical and similar goods and services only in its name without approval of the other co-owners, and concluded that such a trade mark would be considered as having been filed in a bad faith.

It was also emphasised in this decision that the consent of the other co-owners is not required to file an opposition. Each co-owner has the right to protest against actions by another co-owner or co-owners that they consider to be an infringement of the co-ownership. The decision in this opposition case was reached on 16 May 2025 and is still appealable.

Final chapter in the Dzintars cosmetics trade mark saga

Iļja Gerčikovs filed oppositions against the word and figurative marks Dzintars, owned by H.A. Brieger, SIA. Mr Gerčikovs was the beneficial owner and chairman of the board of AS Dzintars, a cosmetics and perfumery developer and manufacturer based in Riga, Latvia, and whose history went back to the mid-19th century. In 2019, the company was declared insolvent and ceased production, and in December 2023 it was liquidated. Since 2020, the production facility of the insolvent Dzintars has been owned by a subsidiary of the Estonian company Skinest Grupp AS.

While these opposition proceedings were ongoing, a judgment of Riga Regional Court dated 10 June 2022 ruled in favour of the insolvent AS DZINTARS’ claim against Mr Gerčikovs for the recognition of the transactions of the “Dzintars” trade marks before and during the insolvency procedure as invalid and the restoration of property rights to the trade marks.

Mr Gerčikovs based the oppositions on two European Union trade mark registrations: “DZINTARS” and “Dzintars BEAUTY” (fig.). By the time of the opposition review, one of the trade marks, namely “DZINTARS”, had been transferred to the owner of the contested mark due to the decision of the Riga court, while the other trademark, namely “Dzintars BEAUTY” (fig.), had been cancelled based on invalidity (following an action filed by SIA H.A.Brieger). Consequently, Mr Gerčikovs was no longer the owner or the successor in title of the mentioned trade marks and the oppositions had to be rejected.

This case was suspended for a long time, but finally it seems that the long-running battle for ownership of the famous Dzintars cosmetics brand is nearing its conclusion. However, the decision in this opposition case was made on 30 May 2025 and, therefore, is still appealable.

Our international Intellectual Property team is at your disposal, should you need advice on any legal issues you are facing.

Subscribe here if you would like to receive newsletters and invitations to webinars and offline events.