Opposition bonanza: The World Trademark Review recognises Michael Gleissner's impact on the Latvian trademark environment
The popular trademark law magazine the ‘World Trademark Review’ on the website https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/ just now has published an article – ‘How Michael Gleissner transformed the trademark environment in Latvia’. The article reflects on the ‘Gleissner effect’ in Latvia and in this aspect the design and trademark attorney Gatis Meržvinskis gave an insight from the local counsel’s perspective.
The trademark filings by both Gleissner’s companies Grigorius Holdings, SIA and Fashion One Television, SIA are described as rampant starting 2014. As a matter of fact, Gleissner’s activities are recognized as legal, however the real motives behind Gleissner’s actions remain speculative and mysterious.
Presence of Gleissner’s trademark applications is felt all over the world, but Latvia is mentioned as the one facing the greatest impact. The reason behind his choice of the Latvian jurisdiction for more than 1500 trademark applications is reckoned as the relatively short timeframe for acquisition of registration. Furthermore, the examination process is only carried out based on absolute grounds, not relative grounds.
The statistics since 2015 show surprising figures – 209 oppositions have been submitted against trademark applications filed by Grigorius Holdings, SIA and Fashion One Television, SIA before the Board of Appeal.
Over these years, we note that PĒTERSONA PATENTS – AAA LAW has been acting against both entities related to Gleissner in 56 opposition matters and this number keeps rising.
Gleissner’s actions are overall depicted as setting unique challenges for local practioners, trademark owners and IP institutions. In the interview Gatis commented:
“We are certainly not only seeing these oppositions, but also the earlier trademark proprietors are telling us that Gleissner is filing revocation actions against them, and these trademark owners are spendinga lot of money on this hell. For trademark owners, this is a nightmare due to all the legal costs and evidence gathering that they must go through – it is time consuming and stressful for them.”