Global menu

Our global pages

Close
Print Friendly and PDF

References

Eversheds Attorneys Ltd.represented DT Trade Oy in a trademark dispute against Abloy Oy, June 2017

Eversheds Attorneys Ltd. successfully represented DT Trade Oy in the Market Court in a trademark dispute against Abloy Oy. In June 2017 the Supreme Court decided not to grant Abloy Oy leave to appeal, thus the decision made by the Market Court remains final.

The dispute was based on Abloy Oy’s patent and trademark rights. After Abloy Oy’s patent for the Exec locking system expired in March 2013, Abloy Oy no longer had the exclusive right to manufacturing keys compatible with Exec locks. In September 2013, DT Trade Oy introduced its own OVIA key, which was compatible with Abloy Oy’s Exec locking system.

Abloy Oy claimed that DT Trade Oy’s OVIA keys infringe Abloy Oy’s 3D trademarks for Exec keys. Abloy Oy also claimed that DT Trade Oy’s marketing stating that OVIA keys are compatible with Abloy Oy’s Exec locks infringed Abloy Oy’s word trademarks ABLOY and EXEC.

The Market Court dismissed Abloy Oy’s claims and confirmed that DT Trade Oy’s OVIA keys are sufficiently different from Abloy Oy’s trademarks and, thus, do not infringe Abloy Oy’s 3D trademarks. The Market Court also confirmed that the references to compatibility with Exec locks in DT Trade Oy’s marketing did not violate trademark law but, on the contrary, were necessary for both retailers and consumers.

Located in Lahti, DT Trade Oy produces OVIA keys, which are compatible with Abloy Oy’s Exec locking system. OVIA keys are sold by over 100 retailers, and the number is constantly growing.

Eversheds successfully represented Julius Sämann Ltd., the holder of WUNDER-BAUM trademarks, in the Market Court in a trademark dispute concerning the infringement of WUNDER-BAUM trademarks, June 2016

We successfully represented Julius Sämann Ltd. in the Market Court, prohibiting the respondents from infringing Julius Sämann Ltd.´s WUNDER-BAUM trademarks.

The Market Court confirmed that the WUNDER-BAUM word mark and the Tree-shaped figurative trademarks are well-known trademarks in Finland and that the respondents’ tree-shaped products and figures together with the name WUNDERBOY were confusingly similar to WUNDER-BAUM trademarks and, thus, infringed WUNDER-BAUM trademarks.

Eversheds successfully represented F-Safety Oy in Market Court in design right dispute concerning Kuomiokoski Oy’s KUOMA winter boots, May 2016

Eversheds Attorneys Ltd. successfully represented the footwear wholesaler F-Safety Oy in a design right dispute in the Market Court.

Kuomiokoski Oy claimed that the children’s ANGRY BIRDS winter boots that F-Safety Oy has had manufactured infringe the design rights of Kuomiokoski Oy’s KUOMA footwear, demanding F-Safety Oy and its distributors to stop the infringement. F-Safety brought an action for a ‘negative declaration’ in the Market Court in order to clarify that its ANGRY BIRDS footwear does not infringe Kuomiokoski’s design rights.

The Market Court found that an informed user’s overall impression of the ANGRY BIRDS boots is different from that of the designs of Kuomiokoski Oy’s KUOMA boots. In doing so, the Market Court confirmed in accordance with Section 41(2) of the Finnish Registered Designs Act that the KUOMA design registrations of Kuomiokoski Oy did not form an obstacle to F-Safety Oy’s business activities and obligated Kuomiokoski Oy to pay F-Safety Oy’s legal and party costs in their entirety.

IP-Agency Finland Ltd, December 2015

 Eversheds Attorneys Ltd. successfully represented the importing company IP-Agency Finland Oy and its several Finnish distributors against Wellmen Oy in a dispute concerning the infringement and cancellation of a design right. Wellmen Oy claimed that certain sporting articles infringe their registered design right and demanded the importer and distributors of corresponding products to cease infringing the rights.

The District Court of Helsinki found that Wellmen Oy’s design right had, in practice, been applied for the appearance of a product already manufactured by a Taiwanese factory without any own intellectual contribution. Only the trademark SELÄTIN had been added to the existing product. Thus, the design had not been created as Wellmen Oy claimed or as referred to in Finnish Registered Designs Act.

This being the case, the District Court of Helsinki cancelled Wellmen Oy’s design registration on the basis of the lack of novelty and individual character. The case outlines the legal interpretation of to what extent a previous design has to have become public in order for it to constitute an obstacle to a later registration of the design. The decision is final.

Eversheds successfully represented Osaühing Aldar Eesti in a trademark dispute, ALKO ./. SuPerAlko, December 2015

Eversheds Attorneys successfully represented Osaühing Aldar Eesti in a dispute concerning an alleged trademark infringement against Alko Oy. Alko Oy claimed that Osaühing Aldar Eesti’s SuPerAlko trademark infringes Alko Oy’s ALKO trademarks and trade name.

The District Court of Helsinki confirmed that Alko had lost its right to prohibit Osaühing Aldar Eesti from using its commercial signs including the word “alko”. Furthermore, the District Court confirmed that Osaühing Aldar Eesti’s trademark SuPerAlko is known among its Finnish target group.

Osaühing Aldar Eesti is a famous Estonian company which operates dozens of grocery and liquor stores all over Estonia. The company owns, for example, the Sadama Turg market hall as well as the SuPerAlko stores.

EVERSHEDS ATTORNEYS LTD. SUCCESSFULLY REPRESENTED DT TRADE OY IN THE MARKET COURT IN A TRADEMARK DISPUTE AGAINST ABLOY OY, JUNE 2015

Eversheds Attorneys Ltd. successfully represented DT Trade Oy in the Market Court in a trademark dispute against Abloy Oy.

The dispute was based on Abloy Oy’s patent and trademark rights. After Abloy Oy’s patent for the Exec locking system expired in March 2013, Abloy Oy no longer had the exclusive right to manufacturing keys compatible with Exec locks. In September 2013, DT Trade Oy introduced its own OVIA key, which was compatible with Abloy Oy’s Exec locking system.

Abloy Oy has protected the appearance of its Exec key with trademark registrations. In addition, Abloy Oy is the holder of the word trademarks ABLOY and EXEC.

Abloy Oy claimed that DT Trade Oy’s OVIA keys infringe Abloy Oy’s 3D trademarks. Abloy Oy also claimed that DT Trade Oy’s marketing stating that OVIA keys are compatible with Abloy Oy’s Exec locks infringed Abloy Oy’s word trademarks.

The Market Court dismissed Abloy Oy’s claims and confirmed that DT Trade Oy’s OVIA keys are sufficiently different from Abloy Oy’s trademarks and, thus, do not infringe Abloy Oy’s 3D trademarks. The Market Court also confirmed that the references to compatibility with Exec locks in DT Trade Oy’s marketing did not violate trademark law but, on the contrary, were necessary for both retailers and consumers.

Moreover, during the procedure the Market Court dismissed two applications for preliminary injunction filed by Abloy Oy and obligated Abloy Oy to pay DT Trade Oy’s legal costs.

Located in Lahti, DT Trade Oy produces OVIA keys, which are compatible with Abloy Oy’s Exec locking system. OVIA keys are sold by over 100 retailers, and the number is constantly growing.

Arla Oy, invalidation of trademark registration VOIMARIINI, 2015

We successfully represented Arla Oy against Valio Oy in a dispute concerning the invalidation of Valio Oy’s trademark registration for VOIMARIINI due to the non-use of the mark. In 2012, the Helsinki District Court found the trademark VOIMARIINI invalid since the trademark had not been used and there was no proper reason for its non-use. The Helsinki Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Helsinki District Court with its decision made in 2013. Valio Oy applied for leave to appeal, and in early 2015, the Supreme Court decided not to grant the leave to appeal. The decision of the Helsinki Court of Appeal will thus remain final. The parties have engaged in multiple disputes in various courts over their respective trademarks INGMARIINI, OIVARIINI and VOIMARIINI during the past decade.

Municipality of Tuusula, annulment of lease agreement and damages, 2013

We represented the municipality of Tuusula in the Tuusula District Court and in the Helsinki Court of Appeal in a matter concerning the annulment of a lease agreement and damages.

Ruukki Group Plc, trademark and trade name dispute, 2013

We represented a Finnish publicly traded company, Ruukki Group Plc (NASDAQ OMX symbol RUG, LSE symbol RKKI) as a lead counsel in a multi-jurisdictional trademark and trade name dispute against another Finnish publicly traded company Rautaruukki Plc. (NASDAQ OMX symbol RTR). The dispute related to whether Rautaruukki Plc has the exclusivity to the geographical indication RUUKKI based on registrations and use. Rautaruukki Plc made several injunction and trade name annulment claims against Ruukki Group Plc and its subsidiaries in Finland, Russia, Switzerland and South Africa. Rautaruukki Plc’s claims for damages at the Helsinki District Court amounted to more than 17 million euros. Ruukki Group Plc refuted all of Rautaruukki Plc’s claims for injunctions, annulment and damages and initiated substantial multi-national IPR related defence measures against Rautaruukki Plc. The parties concluded a settlement agreement in April 2013.

Adidas AG, protective measure and trademark infringement, 2012

We represented Adidas AG in a matter concerning a protective measure (temporary injunction) and a trademark infringement.

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., design right infringement, 2012

We represented Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. in the Helsinki District Court in a dispute concerning a design right infringement.

City of Vantaa and several other municipalities: claiming for damages for infringement of competition law in the ‘asphalt cartel case’ since 2010

We represent the city of Vantaa and several other municipalities in the Uusimaa region in extensive legal proceedings concerning compensation that the municipalities sought for the damages caused to public corporations by an ‘asphalt cartel’. The Helsinki District Court ordered the asphalt companies, the defendants, to pay tens of millions of euro in damages for the damages caused by the cartel in years 1994-2002. The judgment is not yet final.