Russia: Analysing the case of Lunos v Linos

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Russia: Analysing the case of Lunos v Linos

Despite the seemingly unlimited choice of words and the vast imagination of people, collision between similar words, real or coined, is not infrequent. In normal life these words are homonyms or homophones and do not pose any problems in everyday activities. It is a different story in the world of intellectual property. Same or similar words may mean different things but in the eyes of the consumer they are the same and for businesses they may mean loss.

Long ago, there was an international registration No 754940 covering in Russia and other countries the trade mark LINOS with priority of the year 2000 for goods in Class 10. Later, another international trade mark No 1279699 LUNOS was extended to Russia for the goods in Classes 3, 5, 21 and 10. The patent office recognised registration in all classes except 10. The reason for rejection was the confusing similarity of the trade marks.

The applicant of LUNOS appealed the decision of the patent office. He also submitted an irrevocable letter of consent for the goods in Class 10 from the cited trade mark owner (LINOS). The Chamber of Patent Disputes pointed out that the letter of consent could not have been taken into account by the examiner at the time of examination and accepted the appeal.

The law allows coexistence of a confusingly similar trade mark with the cited trade mark if the owner of that mark agrees to coexistence and if consumers are not misled about the relevant goods.

When a decision is taken in the context of a consent letter the patent office nevertheless checks whether confusion is possible and to what degree. It is clear that chances of confusion between goods are growing. The patent office worked out some guidelines for itself to check the possibility of confusion. In particular, it checks (1) whether the claimed designation and the cited trade mark are similar to the extent of sameness; (2) whether the cited trade mark is widely known and whether consumers associate it with a particular manufacturer; and (3) whether the cited trade mark is a collective trade mark and not widely known to consumers.

Even though the practice of submitting letters of consent is routine, this does not mean that all requests of this kind are accepted. The patent office may decline acceptance of the letter of consent if, for example, the trade marks are identical and the goods are the same. These cases are rare though. According to a rough estimate about 90% of letters of consent are accepted and similar trade marks are registered to the satisfaction of applicants.

vladimir

Vladimir Biriulin

Gorodissky & Partners

Russia 129010, Moscow

B. Spasskaya Str

25, stroenie 3

Tel: +7 495 937 6116 / 6109

Fax: +7 495 937 6104 / 6123

pat@gorodissky.ru 

www.gorodissky.com 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Nigel Stoate, head of Taylor Wessing's award-winning UK patents team, tells us about his team’s UPC successes and why collaboration is king
Camilla Balleny, who spent a decade at Carpmaels & Ransford, will become the firm’s first head of patent litigation, Managing IP can reveal
Leaders at the newly merged firm Jones Maxwell Smith & Davis reveal their plan to take on bigger firms while attracting more clients and talent
Charles Achkar, who will bring a team of two with him, said he was excited about joining ‘one of the few strong IP boutiques’
Andy Lee, head of IP at Brandsmiths and winner of the Soft IP Practitioner of the Year award, tells us why 2024 was a seminal year and why clients value brave advice
The deal to acquire MIP's parent company is expected to complete by the end of May 2025
Jinwon Chun discusses the need for vigilance, his love for iced coffee, and preparing for INTA
Karl Barnfather’s new patent practice will focus on protecting and enforcing tech innovations in the electronics, AI, and software industries
Partner Ranjini Acharya explains how her Federal Circuit debut resulted in her convincing the court to rule that machine learning technology was not patent-eligible
Paul Hastings and Smart & Biggar also won multiple awards, while Baker McKenzie picked up a significant prize
Gift this article