| Abstract [eng] |
SUMMARY Legal protection of a sign with a distinctive character Emilija Urbanovič The aim of this Master's thesis was to determine the possibilities of legal protection of a sign with a distinctive character under the provisions of trademark law and the provisions of the law on protection against unfair competition, focusing on the importance of the distinctive character of the sign for the purpose of legal protection of the mark. The work defines the concept of distinctive character of a sign as the ability of a sign to indicate the commercial source of the goods and/or services it designates. The study also analysed the types of signs classified according to the intensity of distinctiveness, which resulted in the identification of fanciful, arbitrary and suggestive signs as strong signs, descriptive signs as weakly distinctive and generic signs as lacking distinctiveness. In the Master's thesis on the protection of signs under trade mark law, it was found that signs that are not distinctive will not be registrable, as one of the absolute grounds for refusal of registration of a sign, as set out in the Paris Convention, the EU Trademark Regulation, the Trade Marks Directive, the Law on Trade Marks, is the absence of distinctiveness. The study also found that signs that lack distinctiveness will also not be recognised as well-known signs, and therefore will not be granted protection under trade mark law. The study analysed the conditions for acquiring the distinctive character of a sign through use, taking into account the fact that the registration of a sign may be invalidated on absolute and relative grounds. The study analysed the possibilities of a sign used in commerce in accordance with the legal rules on protection against unfair competition laid down in the Paris Convention and the Law on Competition, and found that the protection against unfair competition is more extensive, since it can be applied to protect any identifying sign used in the course of commercial activity which has a distinctive character, and the Law on Competition, unlike trademark law, does not provide that the use of a similar sign may be prohibited only to designate identical and/or similar goods. In the course of the Master's thesis, the analysis of the Lithuanian case law and the positions of scientists prevailing in the legal doctrine revealed that trade mark law and unfair competition law are autonomous institutes, which are not prohibited from being applied together. |
