{"id":2903,"date":"2019-06-03T10:37:18","date_gmt":"2019-06-03T10:37:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/insights\/orange-vs-orange-pay-com-ruling-of-the-supreme-court-senate-of-the-republic-of-latvia-of-10-may-2019-civil-case-no-c30699616\/"},"modified":"2022-10-26T12:39:48","modified_gmt":"2022-10-26T12:39:48","slug":"orange-vs-orange-pay-com-ruling-of-the-supreme-court-senate-of-the-republic-of-latvia-of-10-may-2019-civil-case-no-c30699616","status":"publish","type":"insights","link":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/insights\/orange-vs-orange-pay-com-ruling-of-the-supreme-court-senate-of-the-republic-of-latvia-of-10-may-2019-civil-case-no-c30699616\/","title":{"rendered":"ORANGE vs. orange-pay.com \u2013 Ruling of the Supreme Court Senate of the Republic of Latvia of 10 May, 2019, civil case No. C30699616"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":2652,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","services":[20],"topics":[72],"acf":{"insights_1_short_description":"In 2016 the British company Orange Brands Services Limited (the Plaintiff) brought an action against the LLC TransferMoney (the Defendant), natural persons and the Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Latvia claiming infringement of trademark rights and non-material damage. The action was brought before the Vidzeme District Court and based on the Latvian Law On Trade Marks and Indications of Geographical Origin Article 4 (5), Article 4 (7,8,9), Article 27 (1), Article 28, Article 28 (1), Article 39.2 (1), the Council Regulation (EC) No 207\/2009 (26.02.2009) on the Community trade mark Article 1 (2), Article 9 (1). The Plaintiff Orange Brands Services Limited was represented in all court instances by trademark and design attorney, lawyer Gatis Mer\u017evinskis.","insights_1_description":"In 2016 the British company Orange Brands Services Limited (the Plaintiff) brought an action against the LLC TransferMoney (the Defendant), natural persons and the Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Latvia claiming infringement of trademark rights and non-material damage. The action was brought before the Vidzeme District Court and based on the Latvian Law On Trade Marks and Indications of Geographical Origin Article 4 (5), Article 4 (7,8,9), Article 27 (1), Article 28, Article 28 (1), Article 39.2 (1), the Council Regulation (EC) No 207\/2009 (26.02.2009) on the Community trade mark Article 1 (2), Article 9 (1). The Plaintiff Orange Brands Services Limited was represented in all court instances by trademark and design attorney, lawyer Gatis Mer\u017evinskis.\r\n\r\nOrange Brands Services Limited owns a trademark family \u201cORANGE\u201d registered in the European Union, including such European Union trademarks as \u201cORANGE\u201d No. 011428323, \u201cORANGE MONEY\u201d No. 013709134, \u201cORANGE CASH\u201d No. 011126448 etc.\r\n\r\nThe Latvian company LLC \u201cTranferMoney\u201d on the website www.orange-pay.com<\/a> offered the following services - payment system services, payment account opening services, payment processing services, business creation (registration) services and sales services in different jurisdictions, as well as gambling and foreign transaction license services. All of these services correspond to goods and services in classes 9 and 36. On this site the company actively used the trademark \u201cOrange Pay\u201d.\r\n\r\nThe Vidzeme District Court (the first instance court) acknowledged that the Defendant has been using the mark \u201cOrange Pay\u201d in the course of trade and that this mark contains the same dominating element \u201cORANGE\u201d as in the Plaintiff\u2019s marks.\u00a0 Whereas, the term \u201cPay\u201d was recognized as descriptive in relation to all goods and services offered by SIA \u201cTransferMoney\u201d on the mentioned site.\r\n\r\nThe first instance court in its judgment admitted that the mark \u201cOrange Pay\u201d creates similar associations with the Plaintiff\u2019s marks \u201cORANGE CASH\u201d, \u201cORANGE MONEY\u201d and \u201cORANGE BANK\u201d. Notably, the court recognized reputation and high level of recognition of the European Union Trademark \u201cORANGE\u201d No. 011428323 for telecommunications, information technology and related goods and services thereof.<\/strong>\r\n\r\nFurther, the court came to a conclusion that the Defendants (natural person and LLC TransferMoney) by using the mark \u201cOrange Pay\u201d without the Plaintiff\u2019s permission infringed Article 27, Article 4 (part 6, paragraph 2) of the Latvian Law On Trade Marks and Indications of Geographical Origin. The infringement resulted from registering the trademark \u201cOrangePay\u201d and the domain name orangepay.com, transferring it for commercial purposes to the company LLC TransferMoney and using the website www.orange-pay.com<\/a>.<\/strong>\r\n\r\nBased on the Plaintiff\u2019s request, the District Court recognized infringement of intellectual property rights and ruled in favor of interim measures. The court obliged the Defendants not to use verbal or graphic mark \u201cORANGE\u201d or any other identical\/similar marks to the Plaintiff\u2019s marks in relation to goods and services in classes 9 and 36 in the course of trade.\r\n\r\nThe Defendant appealed this judgment before the Riga Regional Court. Nevertheless, the second instance court affirmed conclusions already reached in the first judgment. The court once again acknowledged reputation of \u201cORANGE\u201d marks in the European Union and considered trademark infringement as existing and interim measures to be applied reasonably.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Defendant (natural person) filed an appeal before the Supreme Court Senate of the Republic of Latvia. The ruling of the Supreme Court rendered on 10 May, 2019 rejected the Defendant\u2019s cassation complaint pursuant to the Latvian Civil Procedure Law Article 464.1 (part 2, paragraph 2), which foresees that there was no clear evidence to deem that outcome in the appealed judgment was incorrect and that the case has a significant meaning for ensuring a unified case-law or further formation of law.\r\n\r\n ","insights_1_authors":[2496],"insights_2_type":"Sticky","insights_2_title":"","insights_2_button":"","insights_2_hidden":true},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insights\/2903"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insights"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/insights"}],"acf:post":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/team\/2496"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2652"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"services","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/services?post=2903"},{"taxonomy":"topics","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topics?post=2903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}