The aim of this report is to provide a brief overview of litigation over trademark violations from 2014 until 2019. This period is significant for at least two reasons: first, the beginning of this ...period coincides with a decade since the accession of several East European countries, including Latvia, to the European Union; second, the end of this period coincides with the end of application of the Law On Trademarks and Indications of Geographical Origin of 1999, which was replaced by a new law enacted on 6 March 2020. The procedure for the opposition process as part of trademark registration was reformed as the Law on Industrial Property Institutions and Procedures came into force on 1 January 2016. Although reform of trademark registration and the opposition procedure did not have a direct impact on trademark rights already in place, it could be anticipated that protection of trademark rights as established since 2016 would be more robust and the peculiarities of the previous period would be extinguished. As litigation over the registration and opposition procedure lags behind the filing of applications for registration of trademarks, no cases have been heard over applications filed under the new system, i.e., after 1 January 2016.
Ownership Acquired in Good Faith Rozenfelds, Jānis
Latvijas Universitātes Žurnāls. Juridiskā zinātne,
09/2022
10
Journal Article
Odprti dostop
Acquisition of property in good faith is recognized by Latvian law through numerous exceptions from the principle of causation. The law does not provide a clear-cut regulation. Case law has ...experienced several stages where the same law is applied differently in similar situations, and this has made the outcome of court rulings unpredictable. Attempts to solve the problem by amending existing law so far have been unsuccessful.
This article deals with approaches to establishment of the collateral. Registration in public registers is a precondition to establish a mortgage and a commercial pledge, where the first one is ...recorded in the Land Register, while the second – in the Register of Commercial Pledges. Unlike the mortgages, execution of rights to a commercial pledge depends not only on registration, but also on whether a pledgee has taken actual possession of property. Taking of possession has not been expressly set forth by Latvian laws. It is necessary to specify the moment in legal acts when the pledged property was actually taken into possession. The subject of a mortgage is immovable property. The subject of a commercial pledge is movable property. Immovable property cannot be the subject of a commercial pledge. Distinction between movable and immovable property may lead to a situation when a holder of the commercial pledge loses the collateral due to the fact that the subject of pledge, once moveable, has turned into immovable property. The collateral is also endangered by the fact that public reliability is not necessarily always attributed to all public registers in all situations. Legal regulation of the register of commercial pledges more corresponds with the principle of public reliability. This principle, however, is not clearly defined for land registers and is variously interpreted by courts, thus leaving negative influence upon the stability of pledge rights. It is highlighted in Latvian law that existence of the collateral depends on whether there is a claim secured by a pledge (accessoriness). Current practise differs from that in the interwar period in Latvia. The difference lies within such secured claims that cannot be executed by force due to the limitation period or other reasons. Such changes in practise have led to the situation when secured claims may not be executed in case of insolvency of a debtor if the creditor has been in default to apply his claim within the term set by the insolvency administrator.
Ownership Claim Jānis Rozenfelds
Latvijas Universitātes Žurnāls. Juridiskā zinātne,
09/2022
6
Journal Article
Odprti dostop
The paper analyses the objective of an ownership claim – “to declare ownership rights.” According to the literal meaning of law, the claim can be brought by the present owner, still, in the court ...practice and in legal science this provision is interpreted broader, including a reference to the former owner. Due to this reason the borderline between an ownership and a restitution claim is lost, although in essence they are different. The paper examines borrowings from the German and Swiss law and attempts to construct the so-called “claim on rectification of a land register record” in the Latvian law. Lately the court practice has gradually abandoned this idea by giving preference to protection of the acquirer in good faith, which excludes rectification of a land register record during the trial of an ownership claim. The legal science has also moved into this direction by proposing the respective amendments in the Civil Law. The paper analyses a competition of claims. It is concluded that mostly such competition is only ephemeral. Claims on protection of possession, on execution of a contract and on unjust enrichment are independent claims. Each of them has different aims, and these claims cannot achieve the result that would be ensured by the ownership claim.
The article is dedicated to the so-called problem of divided property, focusing upon the fact that in difference to the legal regulation, which existed in pre-war Latvia, the divided property in the ...current legal situation manifests itself as the existence of two independent and unrelated ownership rights regarding two different objects – building and land – within one and the same plot of land.
Raksts veltīts tā saucamajai dalītā īpašuma problēmai, pievēršot uzmanību tam, ka atšķirībā no pirmskara Latvijā pastāvējušā tiesiskā regulējuma dalītais īpašums pašreizējā tiesiskajā situācijā ...izpaužas kā divu pilnīgi patstāvīgu un savstarpēji nesaistītu īpašuma tiesību pastāvēšana uz diviem dažādiem objektiem – ēku un zemi – viena un tā paša zemesgabala ietvaros.
Rights in rem Jānis Rozenfelds
Latvijas Universitātes Žurnāls. Juridiskā zinātne,
09/2022
8
Journal Article
Odprti dostop
The article deals with rights in rem. It comes forth with an opinion that objects like intangible property, especially intellectual property, shall be regarded as objects of property law according to ...the Civil law of the Republic of Latvia, although during establishment of these legal norms, intellectual property as an object of rights in rem was not well known. The concepts of movable and immovable things and movable and immovable property are used in parallel in the Civil law, even though the first are only attributed to tangible property, while the latter may be used also with respect to intangible property. A common tendency in Latvian laws is the movement from a rather narrow understanding of rights in rem towards a broader understanding. The same tendency may be observed with respect to an aggregation of property. Movable things are regarded to be a part of immovable things (superficies solo cedit) only in cases specifically provided by law (numerus clausus). Still, due to peculiarities of Latvian legal system, several exceptions may be established. They, in turn, cause uncertainty in public registration system of immovable property in Latvia. There are also problems with identification of individual objects of intellectual property subject to registration, e.g. trademarks. Such practise has, consequently, caused or may potentially cause unlawful losing of the rights that have been already obtained, e.g. the ones acquired by a creditor secured by the right of pledge. To solve the problem, it is more urgent to skilfully interpret existing norms rather than to amend the current legal norms.
Rakstā aplūkoti galvenie intelektuālā īpašuma attīstības posmi Latvijā. Latvijā intelektuālā īpašuma praktiska ieviešana sākās pēc Latvijas de facto neatkarības atgūšanas, kad ar attiecīgu toreizējās ...valdības lēmumu tika nodrošināti priekšnoteikumi to preču zīmju pārreģistrācijai neatkarīgajā Latvijā, kuras šīs valsts teritorijā jau bijušas reģistrētas saskaņā ar PSRS likumdošanu. Savukārt Latvijas likumdošana par intelektuālo īpašumu radās tikai neilgi pēc tam. Tās attīstības galvenie posmi ir – pirmo likumu pieņemšana 1993. gadā, likumdošanas izmaiņas, kas bija nepieciešamas, lai nodrošinātu Latvijas iestāšanos Pasaules Tirdzniecības organizācijā (1999. gadā) un Eiropas Savienībā (2004. gadā). Konceptuālie pamati likumdošanā maz mainījušies. Tie ir: intelektuālā īpašuma aizsardzība uz reģistrācijas pamata (reģistrācijas sistēma), reģistrācija tiek nodrošināta pēc formālo reģistrācijas priekšnoteikumu izpildes. Netiek izvirzīta prasība pēc intelektuālā īpašuma objektu ekspertīzes pēc būtības (patenta novitāte, preču zīmes un dizainparauga sajaucama līdzība ar konkurējošiem objektiem). Vairāki intelektuālā īpašuma veidi vai nu netiek regulēti (domēnu vārdi, tirdzniecības noslēpumi, tiesības uz attēlu), vai arī regulēti nepilnīgi (sui generis datu bāzu tiesības). Intelektuālā īpašuma jēdziens Latvijas tiesību zinātnē tika analizēts ievērojami vēlāk – aptuveni 10 gadus, kopš stājās spēkā likumdošana, kas regulēja atsevišķus intelektuālā īpašuma veidus. Tiesību zinātnē un tiesu praksē joprojām dominē šaura īpašuma jēdziena izpratne. Intelektuālo īpašumu daudzi tiesību zinātnieki neuzskata par pilnvērtīgu īpašuma objektu. Tiesā tiek apšaubīta atsevišķu intelektuālā īpašuma paveidu (piemēram, domēnu vārdu), kā īpašuma objektu pastāvēšana. Šāda doktrīna ir ne vien pretrunā ar jau nostabilizējušos praksi (piemēram, ar Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas judikatūru), bet arī traucē intelektuālā īpašuma praktisku attīstību.
The article contains comparative analysis of acquisitive prescription, its legal and factual preconditions and consequences in Latvian law. The purpose of the acquisitive prescription is to remove ...legal uncertainty created by internal defects of the conditions of acquisition of the property inter vivos. However, the complex system of acquisitive prescription under Latvian law does not always achieve this goal. It seems that the system is overly complicated. The cases in which acquisitive prescription is the last resort for the claimant to ascertain his or her ownership of immovable property are leaving the question of ownership unsolved. Introduction of another, simplified alternative to the existing one could be helpful for the solution of numerous cases of failed attempts to prove ownership.
PDF