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 Arctic Biomaterials Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an extensive dispute concerning alleged patent infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit. Our client has invented next-generation bioabsorbable composites that are engineered with Arctic Biomaterials’ X3 bioactive natural mineral fibers, offering robust, bioactive reinforcement for orthopedic implants. These advanced composites empower customers to create high-strength bioabsorbable solutions for the most demanding applications. Back in 2019, Purac Biochem B.V. alleged, among other things, that our client’s Evolvecomp product had infringed Purac Biochem B.V.’s European patent validated in Finland protecting a biocompatible composite and its use. Purac Biochem B.V. filed a preliminary injunction against our client under the Act on Securing the Provision of Evidence in Civil Cases Concerning Industrial Property Rights and Copyright (344/2000). The Finnish Market Court issued an ex-parte injunction against our client on 2 April 2019 (MAO:150/19) and a final injunction on 19 February 2020 (MAO:59/20). Our client had disputed Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent infringement claim from the beginning and claimed that the patent-in-suit was invalid. After five years of litigation, the Finnish Market Court handed down a ruling in the joined invalidity and infringement cases on 10 October 2024 (MAO:560/2024 and MAO:561/2024) declaring Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid and dismissing Purac’s infringement action against Arctic Biomaterials. Also, the preliminary injunction based on an alleged patent infringement imposed against Arctic Biomaterials was cancelled. The Market Court declared Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid due to a lack of inventive step. The Market Court applied the could-would method for determining whether the patent-in-suit is inventive or not. The could-would method is based on determining whether a person skilled in the art would (not simply could, but would) have made a specific improvement to prior solutions, based on the available prior art. The Market Court ruled that it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to solve the objective technical problem of the patent-in-suit in the manner presented in claim 1, using as a starting point the closest prior art (prior patent publication) and combining it with the teaching of another prior art publication. The decision is final.
Case published 29.1.2025
We acted as Finnish counsel to Pernod Ricard in the sale of a portfolio of local Nordic brands to Oy Hartwall Ab, an affiliate of the Danish group Royal Unibrew. Pernod Ricard is a worldwide leader in the spirits and wine industry. The local portfolio of brands includes spirits, liqueurs and Finnish wine brands, the best-known being the liqueur Minttu, along with their related production assets based in Turku, Finland. The closing of the transaction remains subject to customary conditions.
Case published 21.10.2024
We are acting as the lead counsel to Fortum in a cross-border transaction in which Fortum is selling its recycling and waste business. The business is sold to thematic impact investing firm Summa Equity through its portfolio company NG Group. The debt-free purchase price is approximately EUR 800 million. The transaction is subject to authority approval and customary closing conditions. Fortum’s recycling and waste business to be sold comprises municipal and industrial waste management and end-to-end plastics, metals, ash, slag and hazardous waste treatment and recycling services. These businesses are located in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway and currently employ approximately 900 employees.
Case published 18.7.2024
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. The judgment (MAO:280/2024) is not final.
Case published 11.6.2024