Our client BIGBANK AS in 2020 filed a trademark application for different bank financial services in class 36, however it was followed by a partial refusal allowing the mark to be registered only for lending services of class 36.

The decision of the Latvian Patent Office refused the mark for the following services in class 36: insurance brokerage services; financial affairs and financial services relating to the acquisition and security of real estate; money transactions; banking services; electronic banking services; financial investment services; financial services relating to savings; leasing services; financial leasing services; financial transactions and money transfers; none of the aforesaid services including the provision of loans”.

Our client appealed this decision of the Latvian Patent Office and requested the mark to be registered for all applied services in class 36 due to acquired distinctiveness of the mark in Latvia.

A considerable amount of evidence showing long-lasting and extensive use of the BIGBANK mark in Latvia was filed in the matter.

Given the convincing evidence, the examiner decided to amend the previously issued decision and allowed the mark to undergo further registration process.

Therefore trademarks which at first glance seem to be weak and descriptive might be registered due to conclusive use evidence, which show acquired distinctiveness of the mark gained over time. Trademark holders must establish and gather strong evidence to prove that the mark has become disctinctive in the minds of consumers.

In this case, the client was represented by the trademark attorneys Gatis Meržvinskis, Kristīne Viļķina and Inese Leimane.