Latest Assignments

TRINITI represented a client before the General Court of the EU

TRINITI represented Scorify UAB, a Lithuanian company that uses AI to predict consumer habits, against Scor SE, one of the world’s leading reinsurers, in trademark registration case before the General Court of the EU. Scorify filed its logo for registration as a trademark for various real estate, financial and insurance services.

The General Court ruled that Scorify’ logo is not distinct enough from that of Scor SE in relation to part of the filed insurance services and that there was a likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the Court refused to allow Scorify to trademark its logo for part of the services related to insurance. However, the trademark registration remains valid for other services related to real estate.

Please contact Vilija Viešūnaitė for more information.

TRINITI won a trademark infringement case representing Louis Vuitton Malletier

TRINITI won a trademark infringement case where TRINITI lawyers represented Louis Vuitton Malletier, one of the world’s leading international fashion houses and manufacturer of handbags, footwear and luxury accessories. The case was based on the action, brought by Louis Vuitton Malletier in 2018 against OOO Vostok-Jug and ten natural persons, requesting for destruction of counterfeit goods.

TRINITI successfully represented UAB Vilniaus augma in a dispute regarding the validity of the trademark registration

TRINITI successfully represented UAB Vilniaus augma in a dispute with AB AUGA group regarding the validity of the EU trademark AUGA CO registration. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has ruled that AUGA CO, the AUGA group’s trademark, is confusingly similar to AUGAM, the earlier trademark of UAB Vilniaus augma, and declared the registration invalid for certain goods and services

TRINITI successfully represented a luxury fashion industry client concerning the use of the worldwide known trademarks on non-original goods

TRINITI IP team successfully represented a luxury fashion industry client in the judicial proceedings concerning the use of the client’s worldwide known trademarks on non-original goods. The court decision formed a legal precedent to be followed by the other courts in Lithuania, i.e. the rights of the client were declared to have been violated even though the quantity of the counterfeit goods was a single unit and the defendant stated that the counterfeit good has been purchased from China for its own personal use.