In this issue, we bring you the most significant developments in intellectual property law. First, we’ll explain how the newly enforced AI Act establishes a comprehensive legal framework for AI in the EU, including stringent copyright compliance measures. What’s more, you will learn practical strategies from our experts on how to opt out of AI training so as to protect your content. Lastly, we keep you updated on landmark rulings in Lithuania and the EUIPO’s refusal of X. Corp’s trademark application for “X.”

We also provide insights from our recent webinars on the surge in pharmaceutical patent litigation in the Baltics, as well as on how to protect your intellectual property.

Baltic-level news:

Estonia:

Lithuania:

Latvia:

Baltic-level news

AI Act enters into force

On 1 August 2024, Regulation 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council, known as the AI Act, officially entered into force. This regulation establishes a uniform legal framework for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems within the European Union.

Among other objectives, the AI Act calls for compliance with copyright law. It introduces two specific requirements for providers of general-purpose AI models. First, they must implement a copyright policy that leverages state-of-the-art technologies in order to identify and honour opt-outs from the text and data mining exception. Second, they are required to publish a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used to train their AI models, making this information publicly available.

These requirements will become applicable on 2 August 2025. The European Artificial Intelligence Office (AI Office), a newly established regulatory body under the European Commission, will oversee the enforcement and compliance of these and other AI Act requirements for general-purpose AI models and systems across all member states.

Sorainen recently hosted a webinar focused on key legal issues affecting the life sciences and healthcare sector in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. One of the topics covered was the increased number of pharmaceutical patent litigation cases in the Baltics. Since many patents protecting blockbuster drugs have been expiring, there has been a surge in patent holders trying to enforce their rights with preliminary injunctions, and generic manufacturers fighting back with invalidation claims. Check out the webinar recording here.

Webinar on how to protect intellectual property

Another webinar we conducted this year was devoted to the protection of intellectual property. Considering the surging use of various artificial intelligence tools, in today’s dynamic business environment, the protection and management of intellectual property assets has become fundamental to sustaining a competitive advantage. For this reason, our experts shared some insights on how to conduct audits and legal checks in order to keep your intellectual property safe. Check out the webinar recording here.

Estonia

Opting out from allowing your content to be used for AI training

Generative AI systems rely heavily on large datasets, often scraped from the web. This practice raises significant copyright concerns, particularly regarding the reproduction of data. Under European Union law, AI companies are allowed to use copyrighted content for text and data mining by default unless website owners explicitly opt out. In a recent article, Sorainen senior associate Oliver Kuusk and assistant lawyer Marian Moldau shared practical strategies for opting out of the text and data mining exception by using digital statements and digital rights management systems. Read more here.

Lithuania

The Lithuanian Criminal Code establishes criminal liability for the misappropriation of an author’s work. On 4 September 2024, the Lithuanian Supreme Court significantly limited the application of criminal liability in such cases.

Under the circumstances of the case, A.K. agreed with G.Z. to publish a book as co-authors. However, after the receipt of G.Z.’s input, A.K. published the book without mentioning the name of G.Z. while still using G.Z.’s contribution. Instead, A.K. released the book with another co-author, V.S.

A.K. argued that the input provided by G.Z. did not fall within the definition of the work as that input was only a draft and thus did not qualify for copyright protection. The court disagreed with this argument, holding that a draft can indeed constitute a copyrightable work, provided it passes the originality test. And the draft prepared by G.Z. was recognised as the original one by the court, meaning that A.K. had, in fact, misappropriated the work of G.Z.

While A.K.’s actions formally met the requirements for a criminal offence, the court concluded that they did not reach the necessary level of dangerousness to warrant criminal punishment. Criminal law is a remedy of last resort, intended to address the most serious violations and protect the most important values of society. The court found no evidence that A.K. obtained substantial financial benefits from his actions or that G.Z. suffered significant harm. Hence, the court concluded that applying criminal law in this case would contradict the principle of using criminal law only as a last resort.

The word “DeRace” does not pass the test of originality so is not copyrightable

The case at hand was initiated by the decentralised blockchain-based horse-racing video game platform DeRace against a natural person who registered the trade mark “DeRace” in Lithuania and domain name derace.io. The DeRace platform argued firstly, that the given trade mark infringes their copyrights to the word DeRace; and, secondly, is used in a way constituting unfair competition.

The Lithuanian Court of Appeals concluded that the word “DeRace” cannot be protected as a copyrighted work, because it is too simplistic. The court emphasised that this does not mean that a single word cannot be protected copyright; however, the prefix “De” in the word “DeRace” is common in the market (e.g., DeXe, DeFi Pulse Index, DeFine, DeHub, Decentraland, Decred, DeFiChain, Dero, DECOIN, DeFiner, DEZUKI, DEAPCOIN), so does not comply with the requirement for originality.

Regarding the argument of unfair competition, the court concluded that the platform DeRace had not proved that they had started using the word “DeRace” to identify their commercial activities earlier than the defendant, which had registered its domain name earlier. Moreover, the platform had not proved that the word “DeRace” has any distinctive character.

Latvia

The planned amendments will apply to the illegal use of material under copyright and related rights (such as music, films and e-books) on the internet, ensuring that websites hosting such content without authorisation can be blocked. The National Electronic Mass Media Council (NEMMC) will be granted the authority to monitor and take action against the illegal use of copyrighted content online, including blocking access to websites that commit infringements.

Rights holders, including copyright holders, licensees, and collective management organisations, will be able to submit requests to the NEMMC to stop the illegal publication of their content. They will be required to provide necessary details, such as proof of their rights over the content and information about the website that committed the infringement.

If a website is found to be clearly violating copyright, the NEMMC can decide to block access to it. The NEMMC’s decisions can be appealed to administrative courts; however, appealing does not suspend enforcement of the blocking decision until the appeal is upheld.

The legislative process is still ongoing, and the content of the proposed law may be subject to change.

A former member of the legendary Latvian rock band Līvi registers the band’s name as a trade mark under his own name

Juris Pavītols, a musician and former member of the legendary Latvian rock band Līvi, has registered the trade mark “Līvi,” following an expert evaluation by the Latvian Patent Office (the opposition period is still ongoing). Pavītols has previously criticised the leader and the rest of the band that currently uses the name “Līvi”, arguingthat the band ceased to exist after the passing away of its lead vocalist, Jānis Grodums, in 2010.

However, others have countered Pavītols’ claims, stating that he has been absent from the band for over 42 years, during which time Līvi has released multiple albums without his involvement. Critics argue that Pavītols is attempting to claim rights that do not belong to him and insist that the current members of Līvi should be free to perform, as they hold a significant place in Latvia’s musical heritage.

The opposition period for trademark registration continues until 20 November 2024. During this time, any interested party, including earlier rights holders, can submit objections regarding the trade mark registration.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has refused an application by X Corp., owned by Elon Musk, to register the word trade mark “X”

In September 2023, X Corp. applied to register the word trade mark “X” in the European Union, aiming to replace the brand Twitter in Classes 9, 41 and 45 (X filed separate applications for each class).

By November, as anticipated, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) had issued provisional refusals for the X trademark applications, citing insufficient distinctiveness.  Despite X Corp.’s responses, the EUIPO maintained its refusal in decisions issued on 12 July and 14 July 2024.

X Corp. now has the right to appeal against this decision to the EUIPO within two months of the date of notification.

 

Our international Intellectual Property team is at your disposal, should you need advice on any legal issues you are facing.

Subscribe here if you would like to receive newsletters and invitations to webinars and offline events.