Innovation, creativity, and reputation are at the heart of every successful business – and all three rely on strong intellectual property protection. In this issue, our intellectual property experts share the latest cases from across the Baltic region, which reveal how intellectual property continues to shape business, culture and innovation.

Estonia:

Latvia:

Lithuania:

Estonia

The underwear saga: why an identity isn’t free advertising

Finnish actor Jasper Pääkkönen – well-known from his roles in “Vikings” and “BlacKkKlansman” – agreed to pose in underwear to promote a podcast, but before long unexpectedly found himself the face of an underwear brand called “the other danish guy”. A Helsinki court ruled that using the actor’s image beyond the scope agreed violated his rights and awarded him EUR 300,000 in damages.

The case highlights a broader issue: a person’s identity – their name, face, voice, and reputation – is valuable property, and is not a public asset. In the branding environment of today, these traits can shape consumer trust, brand value, and even market performance (just ask Coca-Cola after Ronaldo famously removed bottles of their product at a press conference).

While Estonia doesn’t have a U.S.-style right of publicity, several legal mechanisms protect personal identity: constitutional rights to privacy and dignity, civil law prohibitions on unauthorised image use, the Advertising Act’s consent requirement, and data protection rules. Together, they make clear that a person’s likeness cannot be used commercially without consent.

Identity is protected by law – from constitutional principles to data protection. Unauthorised use can lead to lawsuits, hefty damage payments, and reputational harm. Always secure clear written consent and define the usage terms before making an individual a brand ambassador for your company. Sorainen’s lawyers Helery Maidlas and Marian Moldau analysed this case here (in Estonian).

Estonia and WIPO launch strategic IP pilot to boost innovation capacity

Estonia’s Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa Pakosta, has signed a letter of intent with WIPO Director General Daren Tang to strengthen intellectual property (IP) awareness and skills across key sectors. The initiative marks the launch of a pioneering pilot project aimed at enhancing IP literacy among youth, researchers, universities, entrepreneurs, and public sector professionals.

This collaboration signals a strategic shift: Estonia is prioritising the rapid development and deployment of inventions as a driver of economic growth and competitiveness. The partnership will provide Estonian experts with practical international support in leveraging IP for national prosperity, while WIPO seeks to learn from Estonia’s leadership in digital and AI innovation.

Minister Pakosta emphasised the importance of integrating AI considerations into IP frameworks, particularly in the context of invention creation.

“Invention and rapid innovation are essential to a modern state’s competitiveness,” said Pakosta. “The more actively a government supports invention and its swift deployment, the stronger its businesses perform globally.”

Estonia currently ranks 16th out of 133 countries in WIPO’s Global Innovation Index – an achievement that this initiative aims to build upon by fostering a more innovation-driven legal and economic environment. Read more here (in Estonian).

Sorainen’s legal clinic took place in September, bringing together early-stage founders and experienced lawyers for free one-on-one consultations. Startups received practical guidance on key legal topics such as IP, contracts, tax, and corporate matters from experts including Vladislav Leiri and Helery Maidlas. The initiative continues to support the Baltic startup community by making professional legal advice accessible from the very beginning of a company’s journey.

Good legal groundwork helps startups grow with confidence – every successful venture starts with the right advice. The next legal clinic will be held in January.

Latvia

When spices stir confusion: the “Pripravka” trade mark case

The Industrial Property Board of Appeal of Latvia (the Board) upheld two oppositions filed by the Croatian company Podravka Prehrambena Industrija D.D. against two international figurative trade marks “Pripravka”, designating Latvia, owned by the Ukrainian company Private Enterprise SPS.

The Board found that the user of the contested trade marks could unfairly benefit from the distinctive character or reputation of the European Union trade mark “Podravka” (figurative), which was registered earlier and has a reputation in the European Union, as well as the previously internationally registered trade mark “Podravka” (figurative), which has a reputation in Latvia, or could harm the distinctive character or reputation of these trade marks. As a result, both oppositions were upheld.

However, the most notable aspect of these oppositions lies in the linguistic analysis applied during the assessment of trade mark similarity. In evaluating the likelihood of confusion – one of the grounds for opposition – the Board emphasised the question of language comprehension among Latvian consumers. It noted that consumers with some understanding of Russian or Ukrainian may perceive the verbal element “Pripravka” as being derived from the word “приправа”, meaning “additives” or “spices”. For this segment of the population, the contested trade marks convey a clear conceptual message related to the food products for which the marks are registered.

Conversely, the Board observed that the verbal elements “Pripravka” and “Podravka” have no semantic meaning for consumers who do not understand Russian or Ukrainian. As a result, many Latvian consumers may view both terms as invented or artificial words, with no conceptual associations to aid in distinguishing between the marks.

Taking all factors into account, the Board concluded that the likelihood of confusion between the compared trade marks is rather minimal. Any potential confusion would be limited to those consumers who do not associate the verbal element “Pripravka” with a specific meaning. Accordingly, the opposition’s ground based on the likelihood of confusion was rejected.

This decision highlights the importance of trade mark applicants considering not only the linguistic contexts of Latvian and English, but also the influence of Russian and Ukrainian language comprehension among Latvian consumers. Linguistic factors of this kind can significantly impact the outcome of trade mark disputes in Latvia.

Balancing on the edge of morality

The Latvian Patent Office recently approved the registration of the verbal trade mark “nemīz, dari”, a phrase that, when literally translated into English, reads “don’t piss, do it”. While the direct translation may sound crude, a more culturally appropriate equivalent would be “don’t be afraid, take action” or “don’t chicken out, just do it”. This reflects the motivational intent behind the phrase, albeit expressed in a brash and informal manner. The trade mark was registered, inter alia, for “cosmetic products for children”.

We would like to use this example to highlight some absolute grounds for refusal that should always be considered when applying for trade marks that walk the line between acceptable and beyond the pale.

One of the first absolute grounds that comes to mind is conflict with generally accepted principles of morality. In Latvia, there is limited case law or established practice on this ground, making outcomes difficult to predict. However, this case suggests that the Patent Office is not overly conservative and allows a fair degree of creative expression. That said, each case may differ depending on context and public sentiment.

Another potential ground for refusal is a lack of distinctive character in relation to the goods or services applied for. Here, it is important to assess whether the phrase is commonly used in everyday Latvian and whether consumers would perceive it as a trade mark that distinguishes one entrepreneur’s goods or services from another’s. In this instance, the application was passed without issues, though questions remain about how enforceable such a trade mark might be in practice.

To keep things interesting, the same company has filed two additional applications, for the verbal trade marks “Viss caur dirsu, toties no sirds” and “Viss caur dirsu, bet no sirds”. These phrases translate roughly to “Everything through the arse, but from the heart”.

As of the time this material was prepared, both applications were under examination, and the Patent Office’s decision is awaited with interest.

Lithuania

In September, various fairs took place in Vilnius, offering visitors culinary experiences both traditional and innovative.

According to patent attorney Marijus Dingilevskis, food is more than just flavour – under certain conditions, it can be protected as intellectual property.

Although European Union courts have ruled that a taste itself cannot be registered as a creation or trade mark due to its subjective nature, other aspects of food can be safeguarded. Packaging, shapes, and visual elements that help consumers recognise a brand may qualify for protection. Well-known examples include the square shape of Ritter Sport chocolate and the packaging of Tic Tac sweets.

Food heritage is also preserved through the EU systems of geographical indications and designations of origin, ensuring that products such as Greek feta cheese remain tied to their authentic regions.

Innovation in the food sector is also protected through patents, which may apply to recipes or technologies. Companies such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have secured patents for their plant-based innovations.

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

Where freedom of expression ends and vandalism begins: attacks on Lithuanian sculptures

On 7 August, a sculpture by the artist Mykolas Sauka was set on fire in Lithuanian city of Zarasai. In this case, the destruction of the work was an obvious violation of public order as well as the author’s moral rights, since the act was clearly motivated by dissatisfaction with the sculpture’s appearance. However, there have been situations where similar actions taken towards art are seen not simply as vandalism but rather as attempts to convey political views, express opinions, or draw attention to pressing social issues.

A well-known example occurred on 14 October 2022, when two activists targeted Van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery in London. They poured Heinz tomato soup over the painting’s protective glass and glued their hands to the wall, accompanying the act with the provocative question: “Is art worth more than life? More than food? More than justice?” In this way, the action was framed rather as a political statement than mere destruction.

Comparable cases have also taken place in Lithuania. In 2021, two artists covered the sculpture of the writer and Soviet political figure Petras Cvirka with moss. Their gesture symbolised the passage of time and suggested that even monuments representing official, communist-endorsed history are not immune from reinterpretation, critique or new layers of meaning being added. This invites a broader question: should such actions be understood as legitimate political statements and artistic interventions, or do they cross the line into vandalism?

These questions have already been discussed by our lawyers: please find their comments here (in Lithuanian).

 

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.