27.2.2017

Trademarks, Design Rights and Patents – Do You Have the Right Tools in Place?

Related services

Tags

At times, it is easy to forget that law is only a tool, not an end in itself. The same goes for documentation – content and value over mere existence, every time.

This can be seen particularly clearly in regards to intellectual property rights. A trademark is not a must have extra protection for a trade name, a design right is no award for good design, and the number of patents does not necessarily prove the innovativeness of a company. Neither does the mere existence of these rights guarantee that a company will succeed in the market. Why not?

Strategy in Line with Business?

It is back to basics. It is difficult to stand out from others in competitive markets. Companies often use every possible means to achieve an edge over their competitors with respect to technology, marketing and design. The strategy that a company uses in securing an edge in these areas, the company DNA, should also be reflected in the views of the company, no matter its size, towards intellectual property rights and, particularly, how those rights are utilised.

A well-planned strategy is essentially a half-executed one. However, putting resources into securing intellectual property rights goes to waste if the company has no vision of how those rights actually boost its business. The IP strategy used may be active or passive, and depending on the markets and field of business, as well as on the company size, the level of risk tied to a company’s IP rights strategy can vary greatly.

Have You Considered the Risks?

Let’s change our perspective: it is nearly always a business risk if intellectual property rights – whether owned by the company itself or by its competitors in the field – have not been cleared and even further, if the company’s own rights have not been evaluated and possibly registered and secured by agreements.

However, these registrations and agreements rarely have the desired effect if they are not diligently executed and consistently used. A considerable trademark portfolio may look really impressive, but if the portfolio cannot be efficiently enforced or used due to the low level of protection provided for it, then it is worthwhile to ask why registrations for such rights were filed in the first place? The answer in such situations is often something like: ‘I do not know, I have been with the firm only for a couple of years’. A well-documented IP strategy is helpful in a situation like this, too.

The good thing about the nature of strategy work is that its results are not written in stone and the work is ongoing. Hence, further revisions can and should be made.

Well-planned use of your tools is really your key to success. So, in the spirit of the Nordic World Ski Championships in Lahti, you may well ask: where is the problem if your set of skies failed you? Equally relevant: what could be done about it before the next race?

Latest references

We successfully represented BMW in an exceptionally long dispute over whether the spare rims sold by the defendant and the hub caps included in them infringed BMW’s trademark and design rights. The Market Court found that the sign used by the defendant caused a likelihood of confusion with BMW’s trademarks. The defendant had used the sign on the hub caps and in the marketing of the hub caps and rims, leading the Market Court to find that the defendant had infringed BMW’s trademark rights. The defendant admitted to infringing BMW’s Community design but denied the related injunction claim. However, the Market Court found that there was no particular reason to refrain from issuing an injunction. The Market Court prohibited the defendant from continuing to infringe BMW’s trademarks and Community design and ordered the defendant to alter or destroy the products and marketing materials that infringed BMW’s rights. Furthermore, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay BMW EUR 70,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 80,000 in damages for the trademark infringements, as well as EUR 7,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 8,000 in damages for the design right infringement. The amounts can be considered exceptionally high in Finland. Additionally, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay a significant portion of BMW’s legal costs with interest on late payment. In its decision of 11 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant the defendant leave to appeal, and also decided that there was no need to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the Market Court’s judgements (MAO:494/18 and 517/2023) are final. In addition to the main dispute, BMW demanded in a separate proceeding that one of the defendant’s trademark registrations be revoked. A total of three separate legal proceedings were conducted in the Market Court regarding the revocation. The defendant’s trademark registration was ultimately revoked.
Case published 9.5.2025
We are advising DNA Plc in brand protection and intellectual property enforcement matters globally. Our intellectual property team manages DNA’s global trademark portfolio, including registration, prosecution, opposition and enforcement. We also advise DNA in questions concerning consumer and marketing law, unfair competition, social media, domain names and cybersquatting. DNA Plc is one of Finland’s leading telecommunication companies. DNA offers connections, services and devices for homes and workplaces, contributing to the digitalisation of society. The company has approximately 3.7 million subscriptions in its fixed and mobile communications networks. In 2024, DNA’s total revenue was EUR 1,100 million, and the company employs about 1,600 people around Finland. DNA is part of Telenor Group.
Case published 7.5.2025
We are acting as legal advisor to Piippo Plc in the sale of their bale netwrap and baler twine machines, related assets, and trademarks used in Piippo’s business to Portuguese Cotesi S.A. The sale of assets will be carried out in two phases and the final completion of the transaction is expected to occur during the first quarter of 2026. Piippo Oyj’s core business is baling nets and twine and it is one of the leading suppliers in the industry globally. The company’s global distribution network covers more than 40 countries. The company’s shares are listed on the First North Growth Market Finland operated by Nasdaq Helsinki Oy. Founded in 1967, Cotesi is one of the world’s leading producers of synthetic and natural twines, nets and ropes, with operations in Europe, North America and South America and its main production plant in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Case published 17.4.2025
We successfully represented Onses Finland Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an exceptionally extensive dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement and unfair business practice. Our client, Onses Finland Oy, is a Finnish sports drink company and the owner of the sports drink brand ONSE. In the spring of 2023, the Polish beverage company OSHEE Polska Sp. z o.o. filed legal action against our client, alleging that the ONSE trademarks and product packaging infringed the OSHEE trademarks. The plaintiff’s secondary claims concerned alleged slavish imitation of the OSHEE sports drink packaging and exploitation of the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff based its suit on registered trademarks as well as allegedly established and reputed figurative and three-dimensional trademarks. The Market Court rejected all of the plaintiff’s claims. The Market Court held that the marks invoked in the suit were neither established nor marks with a reputation in Finland. As regards the registered trademarks, the Market Court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the OSHEE and ONSE trademarks. As to the secondary claims, the Market Court held that the sports drink packaging used by the plaintiff was a normal beverage bottle, the design of which was partly determined by functional factors. The Market Court also found that there were several blue sports drinks available on the market and that the plaintiff’s product was not the first blue sports drink on the market. The plaintiff failed to show that its product packaging was original or well-known to the average consumer at the time of the launch of our client’s ONSE sports drink product, and the Market Court thus rejected the claims on slavish imitation and exploitation of reputation. The Market Court ordered the plaintiff to pay all of our client’s legal costs with statutory interest.  In its decision of 28 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant OSHEE Polska leave to appeal. Thus, the Market Court’s judgment (MAO:280/2024) is final.
Case published 4.4.2025