As this edition lands just ahead of Valentine’s Day, we start with a topic that feels seasonal but is very real for brand owners: how emotion, language and symbolism translate into protectable IP – and where they don’t. Even the most universal ideas, like love or romance, can become powerful commercial assets when shaped into distinctive branding, but they can also run into very real legal boundaries.

Beyond that lens, this issue looks at what is currently moving the intellectual property (IP) landscape across the Baltics. We cover marketing and branding pitfalls that still catch fast-growing businesses by surprise, ongoing discussions around copyright reform and what it could mean for creative industries, the rapid emergence of AI-driven legal and business tools, and several court and patent decisions worth having on your radar.

Estonia:

Latvia:

Lithuania:

The IP of love: Valentine’s symbols, brands and boundaries

As this issue of our IP newsflash comes out just ahead of Valentine’s Day, we thought we’d take a moment to reflect on love, branding, and where the line is drawn with intellectual property. While simple hearts, the word “love” and other Valentine’s clichés are far too generic to be protected by themselves, some romantic elements can still fall squarely under trademark law.

Over the years, many Valentine’s-themed elements have been claimed as trademarks. A classic example is the iconic heart-shaped sweets bearing a message that are sold under the name Sweethearts, a trademark currently owned by the Spangler Candy Company. While heart shapes themselves remain free for everyone to use, the name, look and overall branding of Sweethearts are protected.

Even romance-inspired jingles can belong to a brand. Kay Jewelers’ instantly recognisable “Every Kiss Begins with Kay” and Jared’s “That’s Why He Went to Jared” show how Valentine’s Day emotions can turn into long-term trademark assets. Another well-known real-life example is Tiffany & Co.’s distinctive “Tiffany Blue”, a colour so closely associated with love, proposals and luxury that it functions as a protected trademark in its own right.

Terms that are too obvious or descriptive usually stay free for everyone. A good example is “marry me”, which failed as a trademark for online dating services. In one creative defence, trademark-owners argued that no one actually goes on a dating app to get married, so the phrase doesn’t describe the service itself – a bold (and debatable) claim about lovein IP law.

Still, some things remain safely unprotectable: in their everyday life form “Valentine’s Day”, generic hearts or roses, and “be mine” are simply too universal to belong to one brand alone. After all, love works best when it’s shared.

Whether you’re protecting a brand, launching a campaign, or just enjoying the celebrations, we wish you a Valentine’s Day full of creativity, clarity and just the right amount of legal certainty.

Estonia

Marketing gone wrong: the IP mistakes we’ve all made

Startup marketing often prioritises speed and creativity, but this can lead to recurring intellectual property pitfalls. Even well‑intentioned teams frequently overlook key copyright and trademark rules, especially in the EU, where “small” or “online‑only” uses offer little protection.

At a festival for startups and investors, Helery Maidlas highlighted four common mistakes:

  • Using popular music without a licence. Commercial use of songs in marketing requires permission from both the composition and the recording rightsholders. Social media music libraries often don’t cover business use, leading to takedowns and campaign disruption. Royalty-free music libraries, properly licensed commercial tracks and commissioned original music are all legally safe alternatives.
  • Posting images found on Google or Pinterest. These platforms don’t grant reuse rights. Most photos relevant to marketing are copyrighted, and unauthorised use can trigger retroactive licensing claims. Safe alternatives include stock libraries, original photos, and clear licensing contracts.
  • Visible third‑party brands in product shots. Logos and branded items in marketing visuals may imply endorsement and create trademark risks. Shoots should be monitored carefully to avoid unintended trademark use.
  • AI‑generated images copying artistic styles or using celebrity likenesses. “In the style of” prompts or realistic depictions of identifiable individuals may breach copyright, image rights, or unfair competition rules. Avoid prompts referencing specific living artists or real individuals.

Her article, devoted to this topic, closes with a practical checklist: verify rights for all assets, ensure that it can be proved that licences are held, check for third‑party brands or individuals, and take a break and seek legal advice if anything feels unclear.

For more details, you can read the full article here.

The Ministry of Justice has proposed significant updates to the Copyright Act, aimed at reducing legal uncertainty and simplifying the use of copyrighted works.

A more flexible system for private copying levies

This change deals with the system for distributing private copying remuneration. Key changes include:

  • abolishing the current minister‑appointed commission and annual approval of the distribution plan
  • allowing collective management organisations (CMOs) to agree on a distribution plan themselves and then distribute the remuneration according to their mutual agreement
  • introducing a fallback mechanism, in case the CMOs do not reach the required agreement by the deadline

These changes give greater autonomy for CMOs, and introduce a more efficient, self‑regulating remuneration system.

Clearer separation between moral and economic rights

Currently, authors’ moral rights (such as the right to protect the integrity of the work) partially overlap with economic rights (such as the right to process or adapt a work). The draft law proposes to:

  • move the right to modify a work (if doing so does not harm the author’s honour and reputation) from the list of moral rights to the list of economic rights
  • allow this modification right to be licensed and transferred like other economic rights
  • preserve the author’s moral right to object to changes that damage their honour or reputation

The Ministry of Justice states that the amendments will ensure clearer distinction between rights, fewer situations in which users need to request additional permissions, and more practical licensing.

Estonian creative unions oppose planned Copyright Law amendments

According to Estonian creative unions, the proposal to move the author’s moral right to the integrity of the work under economic rights is incompatible with the purpose of copyright law and the Constitution, and risks undermining creative freedom, the integrity of works, and the long‑term sustainability of Estonian culture. This change would allow commissioners, producers or publishers to intervene in the creative process at any stage, replacing authors, changing works, or modifying completed creations without the author’s consent.

The organisations have urged the ministry to halt the current legislative process, restart substantive discussions with authors’ representatives, and follow established good‑practice principles for stakeholder involvement.

You can access the draft amendments (in Estonian) here.

In early 2026 the Estonian Ministry of Justice discontinued the state-funded free legal advice service for low-income individuals and replaced it with an AI chatbot. Since 2017, the programme has provided up to two hours of free consultation with a lawyer to people earning EUR 1,200 or less, covering issues such as family disputes, employment questions and contract matters. The ministry did not launch a new tender for 2025, confirming that the current provider’s contract would not be renewed.

According to the ministry, most legal queries are about relatively similar subjects, making automation a viable alternative. This shift aligns with a broader trend toward digitalising legal workflows, and our senior associate Oliver Kuusk has raised the question: if lawyers can “vibe code,” can everyone “vibe lawyer”?

Recent internal experiments showed that with just 30 minutes of “vibe coding,” lawyers with no technical background were able to build functional MVPs for automated client background checks and improved conflict‑of‑interest screenings. These prototypes are internal‑use only and require human oversight, but they illustrate how quickly AI tools can streamline tasks traditionally seen as time consuming.

The ministry’s decision suggests a belief that at least some basic legal guidance can be reliably automated. However, it also raises concerns about access to personalised legal support for vulnerable groups who previously depended on human lawyers.

Read more of Oliver’s thoughts on this topic here.

Contact our expert in Estonia:

 

Olivia Kranich

Counsel, Estonia

olivia.kranich@sorainen.com

 

Latvia

Unauthorised use of a renowned composer’s name in concert promotion

Recently, a public discussion arose in Latvia regarding the use of the name of the renowned composer Raimonds Pauls in connection with a planned concert organised without his authorisation. Widely regarded as one of Latvia’s most influential musicians, Raimonds Pauls has had a significant impact on the country’s musical heritage. As he is celebrating his 90th birthday this year, related news and celebratory events have received extensive media attention.

A major musical event entitled Raimonda Paula dziesmu svētki ‘Manai Dzimtenei’ (“Raimonds Pauls Song Festival – For My Homeland”) had been planned to take place in the summer and was intended to feature a number of well-known Latvian musicians. However, Raimonds Pauls publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with the event, stating that the concert had not been authorised by him and that he did not support the initiative.

Following his statement, several prominent Latvian musicians issued a public letter expressing their dissatisfaction with the planned concert and announced their decision not to participate. In response, the concert organiser decided to rename the event, removing the composer’s name.

Such actions by the concert organisers may be unlawful and potentially contrary to several legal provisions. Firstly, the composer’s name may qualify as a well-known trademark in Latvia, particularly in relation to goods and services connected with music. Under Latvian law, well-known trademarks are protected even without registration. Secondly, the Latvian Advertising Law expressly prohibits the depiction, use, or other form of reference to a natural person without that person’s consent. It also prohibits the use of anyone’s name, surname, or any other identifying designation, including a trademark, without consent.

As it stands, the name of the planned concert has been changed, and the trademark application filed in connection with the concert has been withdrawn. However, despite these circumstances, the musician has reserved the right to seek further legal remedies, including claims for damages arising from the unlawful use of his name.

Assistance to one of the largest online fashion stores in a trademark opposition case

In a decision issued in opposition proceedings, the Industrial Property Board of Appeal declared the trademark “About Yoú beauty” (a figurative trademark) invalid in Latvia, almost in its entirety. The decision was adopted following an evaluation of an opposition filed by our client, ABOUT YOU, one of Europe’s largest online fashion retailers, and the owner of several ABOUT YOU trademarks.

The Board of Appeal concluded that the contested trademark is visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to the dominant element of the opposing trademark and that it has been registered for similar goods and services. Consequently, the use of the contested trademark could create the likelihood of confusion among consumers. In addition, the Board of Appeal found that the opposing trademark is widely known in Latvia and that its distinctiveness could be weakened by the use of the contested trademark, thereby creating misleading associations as to the origin of the goods and services.

The opposition was upheld almost in its entirety, with the contested trademark remaining valid only in respect of one service that is unrelated to our client’s business.

Contact our expert in Latvia:

Linda Sarāne-Reneslāce

Partner, Latvia

linda.reneslace@sorainen.com

 

Lithuania

At the end of 2025, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania issued a new ruling concerning the transfer of copyright.

The dispute arose between Delfi and Vikimedija over ownership of a fact-checking software platform, demaskuok.lt. Delfi argued that the parties had effectively concluded a copyright assignment through their conduct, even though no written contract had been signed. Vikimedija insisted no rights were ever transferred.

Both the first‑instance court and the Court of Appeals sided with Vikimedija, finding there had been no written agreement and therefore no transfer of rights. All of Delfi’s claims were dismissed.

The Supreme Court, however, saw the situation differently. It emphasised that under general principles of contract law, a written agreement is not always required to establish that a contract has been concluded. Instead, the parties’ true intention and their actual conduct are the primary factors that must be assessed when determining whether a contractual relationship exists.

The court also reminded the parties that copyright assignments follow the “minimum rights” principle established in 2012 in the so-called Briedis Eugenijus case. Under this principle, where there is uncertainty about the scope of rights transferred, it is assumed that only those rights strictly necessary to achieve the purpose of the contract have been conveyed.

Nevertheless, this case reminds us that it is very important to conclude a written intellectual property transfer agreements and define the scope of the transfer of rights very clearly.

Religious symbolism and design registration: a nuanced State Patent Bureau approach

The Lithuanian State Patent Bureau’s Appeal Division recently overturned a refusal to register decorative figurine designs that incorporated a swastika, used in a religious context.

The applicant, the Gaudiya Vaishnava religious community, sought design protection for figurines featuring the symbol for religious purposes. The State Patent Bureau had initially rejected the applications; however, on appeal the authority reached the opposite conclusion, holding that a swastika used in a religious context does not, in itself, violate public order or good morals.

This conclusion was based on several factors.

First, the Bureau noted that the symbol was presented as an ancient sign found in Hinduism, Buddhism and Baltic culture, conveying spiritual and religious meanings such as happiness, the sun and balance. It appeared only as part of a broader spiritual composition rather than as the dominant design element.

Second, the Bureau emphasised that the symbol clearly differed from the Nazi version: it was upright rather than tilted, did not use the red-white-black colour scheme and was combined with other religious motifs. Consumer surveys submitted in the proceedings also showed that the public increasingly distinguishes between the symbol’s religious use and historical misuse.

The applicant’s status as an officially registered religious community also played an important role. The Bureau concluded that the community genuinely uses the symbol in its religious practice.

Finally, the community already held a registered trademark featuring the same symbol.

Taken together, these considerations led the Appeal Division to conclude that the acceptability of symbolism of this kind depends heavily on the surrounding context and the way the sign is presented, rather than on the symbol alone.

At the same time, the State Patent Bureau’s initial concerns were not unfounded, given the strong negative associations the symbol has in Europe. The decision therefore highlights the need for careful, case-by-case assessment when sensitive historical symbols appear in intellectual property filings.

For more information, you can read the State Patent Bureau’s decision here.

Supreme Court sets out a clearer approach to patent claim interpretation

Over the Christmas period, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania issued an important decision for patent law, clarifying how the interpretative principles of the European Patent Convention (EPC) may be applied by analogy in national patent disputes. The ruling also addressed how patent claims should be construed and drew a clear distinction between the role of patent claims and descriptions.

The court held that, although the EPC does not directly govern national patents, EPC-based case law may be used as guidance when assessing the scope, validity or existence of infringement of Lithuanian patents, given that European patents ultimately take effect as national rights.

It further confirmed that claim interpretation is a matter of law. Claims must be read from the perspective of a “person skilled in the art” – a legal construct used to ensure an objective understanding of technical terms and to assess patentability issues such as novelty and the inventive step. The patent-holder’s subjective intentions are not of essential importance when defining claim scope.

Finally, the court emphasised that patent claims and descriptions serve distinct functions. While the description may assist in interpreting the claims, it cannot be used to extend their scope or introduce technical features that were not expressly claimed.

Contact our expert in Lithuania:

Marijus Dingilevskis

Marijus Dingilevskis

Senior Associate, Lithuania

marijus.dingilevskis@sorainen.com

 

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.