Is a National Court Competent to Introduce a Disclaimer into a Trade Mark Registration? the Latvian Supreme Court Finally Says 'No'

It was a longstanding practice of Latvian courts to acknowledge their competence to introduce a disclaimer into a challenged trade mark registration. This had come to be considered as settled court practice. However, the Latvian Supreme Court recently decided to withdraw this practice and explicitly admitted a change of approach concerning the competence of Latvian national courts to introduce a disclaimer into a trade mark registration. In this way, the Latvian Supreme Court finally abolished a disputable practice in the Latvian courts, having formerly allowed themselves to introduce a disclaimer which could-by way of a misunderstanding of trade mark law-be introduced by a court in addition to a trade mark applicant and the Patent Office. The consequences of this Latvian case have led to the situation that only a trade mark applicant may-either on their own initiative or following a request from the Patent Office-introduce a disclaimer into a trade mark registration. This opinion discusses the situation which existed before the Latvian Supreme Court judgment in question and its consequences.