The Latvian court admits 'SMART ORANGE' to infringe trademark rights of Orange Brand Services Limited

In 2020 the British company Orange Brands Services Limited (the Plaintiff) brought an action against Smart Orange, SIA (the Defendant) claiming infringement of trademark rights and non-material damage. The action was brought before the Riga City Vidzeme District Court.

Orange Brand Services Limited owns a trademark family ‘ORANGE’ registered in the European Union, including the figurative mark:

Smart Orange, SIA in its commercial activity in Latvia uses a non-registered figurative mark in relation to different electronic goods and household appliances and commerce thereof:


This mark is being used at a shop titled ‘MI-SHOP’, on the shop’s signboards, on business cards, as well as in the company’s name Smart Orange, SIA.

Use of the non-registered trade mark ‘SMART ORANGE’ in figurative and verbal (word mark) format is used in commercial activity without the Plaintiff’s permission.

The court having examined the case materials and having heard observations of the Plaintiff’s representative, admits the claim based on the following reasonings:

  • The Plaintiff’s trade marks ‘ORANGE’ are well-known and endowed with reputation the EU in relation to telecommunications, information technologies and goods related to these services.
  • The Plaintiff’s verbal and figurative trade marks ‘ORANGE’ embrace goods and services in classes 9, 38 that are also offered by the Defendant.
  • The dominating part of the Plaintiff’s marks and the sign ‘SMART ORANGE’  is ‘ORANGE’ and since it is identical, it can cause a risk of confusion among consumers.
  • The risk of confusion is increased by the fact that marks at issue are composed of an orange colour square on which white letter inscription is placed.
  • The sign used by the Defendant entails the word element ‘SMART’ which refers to ‘smart technologies’. Therefore, consumers may have associations that this sign is one of the Plaintiff’s family trade marks, because it is similarly created, namely, by using the dominant component ‘ORANGE’ in combination with a descriptive element.
  • There are legal grounds to prohibit the Defendant to use in commercial sites/shop signboards similar signs to the Plaintiff’s marks ‘ORANGE’ or signs that would confusingly reproduce, imitate, translate or transliterate the reputed trade marks in relation to goods in Class 9 and services in Classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42.
  • The Defendant shall be obliged to change the company’s (firm) name that it would not include the sign ‘ORANGE’ or a confusing reproduction, imitation, translation or transliteration of this designation.

The Plaintiff in this case was represented by trademark attorneys Gatis Meržvinskis un Gunta Zariņa.

Related news

If you have questions about registration of trade marks, designs, patents, enforcement thereof or other IP related questions, we are kindly offering you a free consultation on the 21st of September.

Please sign up by calling the number + 371…

The leading specialist guide to IP firms and practitioners worldwide Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars in 2022 has ranked Petersona Patents – AAA Law among one of the most recommended agencies in Latvia (Tier 1) [1]. Also the managing…

We share this time of celebration with our clients, friends and colleagues, all so necessary to both our past achievements and to all our future endeavors.

Our website uses cookies in order to improve this website, to offer better and customised services. If you agree, press ‘Accept‘. We will not place cookies on your device if you do not agree. However, certain functions of the website may not function properly or may not function at all. You may withdraw your consent at any time. Please see our Privacy policy for more information about personal data processing, cookies, data they collect and your rights.