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 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
We acted as the legal and ESG advisor to Mérieux Equity Partners on the acquisition of a majority stake in Labquality through a leveraged buyout by its buyout fund, Mérieux Participations 4. Existing shareholders of Labquality, including Cor Group and the management, will reinvest a portion of their proceeds into the company in connection with the transaction. Headquartered in Helsinki, Finland, Labquality is a Nordic player specialized in EQA, CRO activities and regulatory affairs, with a strong local presence in Central and Eastern Europe. The company provides a comprehensive array of services for the healthcare, medical technology, and pharmaceutical industries. The company, employing over 120 professionals and supported by a network of more than 150 external experts and consultants across its offices in Finland, Germany, and Poland, serves a diverse clientele of over 8,000 customers, including major pharmaceutical companies in over 60 countries. Mérieux Equity Partners (MxEP) is an AMF-accredited management company dedicated to equity investments in the Healthcare and Nutrition sectors. MxEP actively supports entrepreneurs and companies with differentiated products and services, giving them privileged access to its sector expertise and international network. The transaction will enable Labquality to pursue its buy & build strategy in Europe to accelerate its CRO activities while continuing strong and recurring growth in the EQA segment. Labquality will benefit from MxEP’s sector expertise and financial resources to achieve its ambition of becoming a leading European CRO and EQA platform, with fully integrated regulatory consulting capabilities to serve major customers across Europe.
Case published 4.12.2023
We advised Voisin Consulting Life Sciences (VCLS) on the acquisition of MedEngine, a leading medical science agency in the Nordics. MedEngine is a digitally minded, premium service provider for the pharmaceutical industry, built upon extensive academic expertise and years of experience in the industry. Founded in 2014, MedEngine has a strong presence across the Nordic countries with offices in Helsinki (Finland), Copenhagen (Denmark), and Stockholm (Sweden). Founded in 1997, VCLS provides end-to-end HealthTech solutions to support biotechnology, pharmaceutical and MedTech manufacturers throughout their product development. With offices in the US, France, UK, Switzerland, Denmark, Madagascar, India, and China, VCLS serves a broad range of developers and investors in HealthTech.
Case published 7.11.2023