Ellex has been included in the 2025 edition of Managing Intellectual Property’s IP STARS rankings and recognised in the IAM Patent 1000 guide for its work in intellectual property across the Baltics. In addition, Ellex has been honoured with the Baltic Law Firm of the Year award at the Managing IP Awards 2025, further reinforcing our position as a trusted and highly regarded leader in the field of IP law.
Experts ranked in the IP STARS 2025 guide:
Trademark Stars: Mari Must, Ants Nõmper, Mārtiņš Gailis
Rising Stars: Edvijs Zandars, Merlin Liis-Toomela
Transaction Star: Sarmis Spilbergs
The one and only Copyright Star in Lithuania: Ąžuolas Čekanavičius
The IP STARS guide, published by Managing IP, is a leading resource for IP rankings, covering over 80 jurisdictions and multiple practice areas.
Ellex has been ranked as a recommended law firm in all three Baltic countries in the 2025 edition of the IAM Patent 1000, a guide that is respected for its focus on patent strategy and enforcement and identifies the world’s leading patent professionals and firms.
The full rankings of IP Stars are available here, and details about the research methodology can be found here. The rankings of IAM Patent 1000 can be viewed here.
Ellex is the leading law firm specialising in IP, IT and telecoms. The firm has more than 15 years of diverse and specific experience in all types of registration matters and disputes (trademarks, copyrights, designs, domain name rights) and infringement disputes (dealing with police, customs and court matters) at all levels – Baltic, European and international as well.
Our team has strong intellectual property law expertise in advising top-flight clients from various industry sectors. Find out more here.
Ellex represents clients in major cases, manages complicated IP prosecution projects and advises global players on all aspects of their IP strategies and enforcement.
Ellex Transaction Radar summarises the most important trends of the transaction market in the first half of 2025. The first half of 2025 saw 96 transactions in Estonia, just two more than in the previous half-year. The highest number of transactions over the past four quarters occurred in the most recent quarter (52), but the overall transaction volume has remained at the same low level as at the end of 2024.
According to the Transaction Radar, the European and global transaction markets are paralyzed from the general geopolitical instability. There were certainly other important factors but the main driver was President Trump’s tariff circus which affected the transaction market in the half-year that just ended. In Estonia the scene is still negative due to inflation and economic recession.
In the first half of 2025, a total of 96 transactions were registered in Estonia, divided as follows:
39 venture capital and technology transactions;
43 traditional M&A transactions;
6 major real estate transactions;
8 share issues (incl. OTC issues).
According to Ellex partner Risto Vahimets, the energy, defence, and technology sectors remain in the spotlight. “However, we must seriously address issues that the rest of the world has largely overcome but which still affect both the investment climate and the overall state of the country and society. I’m referring to inflation and economic recession,” Vahimets noted.
Partner Sven Papp added that one positive takeaway from the first half of the year was the sustained interest and presence of foreign investors – a subject that has raised many questions and even concerns in recent years. “Just like elsewhere in the world, turbulent times give local investors a home-field advantage, as they tend to feel somewhat more secure here. Still, we’re seeing institutional investors remaining passive and in a wait-and-see mode everywhere, which will likely continue until the outlook becomes more predictable,” said Papp.
Ellex Transaction Radar has been published since 2020, following the end of each half-year period. It provides insights into the key drivers behind major deals in Estonia and forecasts potential developments for the periods ahead.
Ellex advised on one of the largest renewable energy financing transactions in Lithuania to date. SEB Bank and Swedbank have provided a €145 million long-term loan to European Energy, supporting several strategic green energy developments in the country.
The loan will be used to refinance and further expand three key renewable energy assets:
Two 60,5 MW onshore wind farms (“Telšiai I” and “Telšiai II”),
A 78.5 MW solar PV park in Anykščiai,
And a new grid-scale battery energy storage system, to be developed adjacent to the solar park.
These hybrid energy assets are expected to generate approximately 0.5 TWh of electricity per year, equivalent to around 4% of Lithuania’s total electricity demand, significantly contributing to the country’s energy independence and climate goals.
This transaction reflects the growing importance of energy storage and large-scale renewable projects in Lithuania’s path toward a carbon-neutral future. Ellex is proud to support such forward-looking initiatives.
This year’s Chambers Europe Awards in Madrid brought great news – Ellex was named Baltic Law Firm of the Year 2025.
This is one of the most respected awards in the legal world – an honour that reflects not only legal excellence, but also a deeper set of values: trust, consistency, and the ability to work as one across borders. For us, this recognition belongs to the entire Ellex team in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, who continue to guide clients through their most complex legal and business challenges.
What makes this year even more meaningful is that it’s not the only one. We’re proud to have also received the Baltic Law Firm of the Year title from both the IFLR Europe Awards and the IP Managing Stars Awards – two other major international rankings that evaluate legal work through the lens of innovation, technical quality, and client impact.
These recognitions reflect how we work – with care, consistency, and a focus on what really matters to the people we support.
They’re also a reminder that staying clear on what we do, working closely across our region, and doing things well – still counts.
We’ll keep going the same way. Helping clients make sense of legal complexity and move forward with confidence – here in the Baltics, and wherever the work takes us.
U.S. fintech leader Robinhood has announced a major step in its international expansion — the company’s first European hub has been established in Lithuania. Ellex experts advised the company on regulatory matters related to investment and crypto-asset services in order to obtain the necessary licenses for operation.
In April of this year, the Bank of Lithuania granted Robinhood Europe a Category A brokerage license, which allows the company to provide investment services such as receiving and transmitting orders, executing orders on behalf of clients, dealing on own account, and offering additional services.
Furthermore, in May of this year, the company obtained a crypto-asset service provider license, allowing it to receive and transmit orders related to crypto-assets, execute crypto-asset transactions on behalf of clients, safeguard and administer client crypto-assets, and perform crypto-asset transfers across the European Economic Area. This crypto-asset service provider license is the first of its kind in Lithuania, issued under the new EU Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation.
Founded in 2013, Robinhood is one of the most well-known financial services companies in the U.S., listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange in New York. The company offers users the ability to trade stocks, ETF derivatives, and cryptocurrencies. Robinhood serves over 25 million customers worldwide.
The launch of Robinhood’s operations in Lithuania, following the successful granting of two licenses, marks one of the most significant developments in the fintech sector this year. We are proud to contribute to the launch of world-class fintech companies in Lithuania and to strengthen the country’s position as a regional leader in technological innovation.
The third edition of the ITechLaw Startup Legal Playbook aims to provide startup founders and lawyers with a concise guide to key issues in foreign jurisdictions.
The Playbook was created to help triage important issues and enable better risk assessment and questioning. Its many authors are ITechLaw lawyers from around the world experienced in working with startups. The Playbook is primarily broken into chapters by country, plus a number of umbrella chapters dealing with certain specific topics.
This publication is a result of the Startups Committee of the International Technology Law Association (ITechLaw).
The Latvia chapter was prepared by Ellex co-authors: Sarmis Spilbergs, Edvijs Zandars, Pauls Ančs, Irina Kostina, Tomass Brinkmanis, Eduards Dzintars, Madlena Drozdova and Elīna Krūze.
The EUDI Wallet is set to transform how financial services are accessed across the EU. In this article, Jane Sabal, lawyer at Ellex in Estonia, and Anneli Krunks, the head of fintech, explain why it is essential that operations associated with financial services are also possible to carry out digitally. In Estonia, we are used to accessing financial services simply by logging into a corresponding mobile application using digital identification (for example facial biometrics). Signing new service contract or terminating existing one is also done using a digital signature. While these solutions are self-evident for us, they are not yet a standard across Europe. The spread of digital services (including financial services) requires a more common approach in the European Union and a creation of a digital solution.
European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI Wallet)
EUDI Wallet is an application that allows all European Union citizens, residents, and businesses to digitally prove their identity, store and share identity documents, and conduct digital transactions. Usage of the EUDI Wallet should be free for individuals and the EU member states will have the right to decide whether businesses should be subject to fees to use wallet services.
Estonia has been a pioneer in technological development for years. The ID-card, Mobile-ID, and Smart-ID are integral parts of our daily lives, through which we can identify ourselves digitally as well as use for doing transactions. Many other EU countries do not have such digital solutions, and there has been a lack of unified approach and digital solutions within the EU. Therefore, the EUDI Wallet represents a revolutionary step in managing one’s digital identity, enabling standardized principles and cross-border digital transactions.
Possibilities of using the EUDI Wallet
There are numerous ways to use the EUDI Wallet. It helps to securely identify and authenticate individuals, particularly simplifying identification in case of cross-border services. In other words, if previously the solutions of the respective country had to be used to identify oneself when using a service in another EU country, then in the future, it should be possible to identify oneself in every EU country with the help of the EUDI Wallet. This should significantly simplify access to digital services (including financial services) across member states.
Additionally, the EUDI Wallet allows various transactions to be conducted digitally. In the future, it should be possible to sign documents using the EUDI Wallet in any EU country. (Public) legal persons should be able to certify documents using an electronic seal (e.g., diplomas). This means that in the future, it is possible to perform digital transactions uniformly and swiftly by using a standardized application across all EU countries, simplifying transactions, especially cross-border ones.
The EUDI Wallet also includes functionality for storing and accessing data. It can store various identity documents and other data (for example diplomas).
Impact of the EUDI Wallet on financial services
The EUDI Wallet enables easier and smoother provision of digital and automated financial services.
The EUDI Wallet would have a significant impact, for example, on ensuring the compliance with anti-money laundering requirements for financial institutions. It simplifies identification process of individuals when establishing and during the business relationship. In addition to authentication, customers can easily share other necessary data with financial institutions using the EUDI Wallet. This reduces reliance on solutions provided by private companies, thereby making compliance with anti-money laundering requirements simpler and more cost-effective for financial institutions.
Furthermore, the EUDI Wallet has a considerable impact on overall consumption of financial services and conducting financial transactions. It allows to enter into and terminate new financial service contracts digitally, to confirm financial transactions (e.g., make payments) digitally, and to conduct other financial service operations digitally across any EU member state.
The EUDI Wallet solution offers positive opportunities for all financial institutions, particularly to those providing digital and cross-border financial services. It will make the provision of financial services easier, faster and cheaper, and promotes the spread of digital financial services across Europe.
However, it is important to note that the use of the EUDI Wallet is voluntary, which means that, at least in the beginning, existing country-specific solutions will likely remain. With wider adoption, the EUDI Wallet could become the primary application for digital identity across the EU.
The legal aspects of the EUDI Wallet solution are regulated by the European Digital Identity Regulation. Currently, the testing of the digital solution is underway, with the participation of public sector institutions from different countries as well as private sector companies. According to current plans, the introduction of the EUDI Wallet application is scheduled for the end of 2026.
The article was originally published in Estonian on 28 May 2025 on finantsuudised.ee.
From 1 June to 31 July 2025, professional visual artists in Latvia are invited to apply for the Vija Celmins Foundation Grant – one of the most substantial individual support initiatives in contemporary Latvian art.
The $30,000 USD grant will be awarded to a single artist or artist collective who has demonstrated excellence and consistency in their creative practice. The aim is to provide artists with the freedom to fully dedicate themselves to artistic growth, outside the constraints of daily economic pressures.
This initiative is the result of a collaboration between the Vija Celmins Foundation, the Latvian National Museum of Art (LNMM), and Vija Celmins – the internationally acclaimed American artist born in Latvia.
“Talents must be trusted and given the freedom to create, so that something truly unique can emerge in art,” emphasizes jury member and art historian Dr. Elita Ansone, highlighting the importance of this support.
The grant will be awarded annually for a period of ten years, from 2025 to 2034, supporting sustainable art patronage in Latvia.
The recipient will be selected by the Vija Celmins Foundation based on nominations put forward by a professional jury. All application details are available on the Latvian National Museum of Art website: www.lnmm.lv
Ellex Kļaviņš proudly continues its cultural patronage tradition by supporting this important initiative, advancing the development of contemporary Latvian art in collaboration with LNMM since 2017.
Applications should be submitted to: Application period: 1 June – 31 July 2025 The selected recipient will be announced in October.
We’re pleased to share a recent CEE Legal Matters interview with Ellex in Estonia Partner Gerli Kivisoo, who provided an insightful overview of the country’s current business environment. The conversation highlights cautious optimism in the market, driven by modest economic growth, ongoing tax reforms, regulatory developments, and a shifting capital markets landscape.
“The best word to describe the market at the moment would probably be ‘anxious’,” Kivisoo begins. “Estonia’s economy has returned to modest growth, just 1.2%, but overall market sentiment remains cautious. Foreign investment and transactional activity have stalled due to persistent geopolitical uncertainty and global trade volatility, and Investors are understandably conservative.”
As for specific issues that are the talk of the town among lawyers, Gerli Kivisoo says that there are two. “First is the tax reform package, which was set to enter into force at the beginning of 2025, including a major change: corporate income tax on retained earnings. That would have been a game-changer, especially since Estonia has long been known for its flat-rate tax regime and 0% corporate income tax on retained and reinvested profit,” she says. Foreign investors saw this as a major change-up, so the initial plan to reverse that model created real shockwaves. “Thankfully, the new government, which came to power in March, walked back the change. Still, we did see a VAT and income tax rate increase come into effect this year, signaling that the tax policy environment is not as predictable as before.”
The second big topic Kivisoo mentions is the Estonian government’s push to reduce regulatory pressure. “They’ve asked market participants, particularly in real estate, planning, banking, and finance, but also elsewhere, for proposals to streamline administrative processes. I think we won’t see much impact in the finance sector, because most of the regulation comes from the EU, and there’s limited room to maneuver. But still, it’s a welcome gesture, and we’ll see where it leads,” she posits.
Focusing on capital markets developments, Kivisoo reports a mixed picture. “The last IPO on the Estonian market was Infortar at the end of 2023, one of the largest listed entities with a market cap of EUR 1 billion. But 2024 saw no equity raising in public markets and, instead, the year was dominated by debt offerings.” According to Kivisoo, the biggest recent news is the voluntary takeover and delisting of Enefit Green, a major renewable energy company majority-owned by Eesti Energia, a state-owned energy company. “The state now holds over 97% of shares, so the delisting is proceeding forward. This is a huge moment for the Estonian capital markets; when Enefit Green IPO’d, there were over 60,000 retail investors involved, the most in Estonian history. So it’s a real disappointment for the stock exchange to see it go private.”
Other than that, Kivisoo says that the market has seen “modest public debt offerings, including Estonia’s first public offering of green bonds, though these are not EU green bonds in the essence of recently adopted regulation. These bonds, issued by real estate developer Liven, raised EUR 4 million, which is a decent volume for the Tallinn Stock Exchange.” Looking forward, Kivisoo says that the “Omnibus initiative is a big item on the horizon, especially in terms of easing sustainability reporting obligations. The market welcomed the relief, but we’re not expecting any IPOs on the main market in the near term. If anything, there’s talk of more delistings and, with only 17 listed entities on the Tallinn Stock Exchange, each departure hits hard.”
Finally, sharing her outlook for M&A, Gerli Kivisoo says that while the second half of 2024 was very quiet, “that seems to be slowly changing. We’re starting to see transactions emerge, and there’s a lot of dry powder waiting on the sidelines. There’s definitely momentum building beneath the surface.” If macro conditions remain stable, Kivisoo ultimately believes we may see a stronger pipeline in the back half of 2025.
In recent days, the media have been abuzz with the news of the catering bankruptcies that operates well-known restaurants in Lithuania. This is not the first such case in the last few weeks. Recent statistics show that catering businesses are one of the most frequent bankruptcies. In the context of these current events, the question naturally arises: what should a business do when faced with financial difficulties? Are there alternatives to bankruptcy? About this topic talking Simona Danylė, law and an associate partner in the firm’s Dispute Resolution practice
There is a lot of debate about what causes financial difficulties for businesses in the catering sector. Some point to fierce competition, changing consumer behaviour. Others put more emphasis on the high operating costs (increase in rent, raw materials, personnel costs) and changes in the tax environment (the return of the standard VAT rate of 21%). The reasons for the high number of insolvencies in the food service sector should not be generalised, as solvency problems in business are often caused by very individual factors. However, whatever the causes of financial difficulties, they can be addressed, but it is essential that decisions and actions are not delayed.
Bankruptcy is a measure of last resort and is not intended to solve solvency problems but to deal with their consequences. Bankruptcy is not aimed at preserving the business, but at liquidating it and paying creditors as much as possible. Unfortunately, statistics show that a very significant proportion of creditors’ claims remain unsatisfied during bankruptcy. In addition, jobs are lost and the added value created by the business is lost, so bankruptcy is not in anyone’s interest.
When faced with financial challenges, bankruptcy is far from being the only option. Action should start with identifying the problem and finding commercial solutions. Here, the business still has the “help of the courtroom” and can turn to financial and legal advisors to work out with them a plan of action and possible solutions. When the problem is not persistent, a rapid reorientation of the market and the adoption of timely commercial solutions can bring a positive result.
The State also offers support mechanisms for businesses in difficulty. In this context, various guarantees, subsidies, soft loans (ILTE – National Development Bank), tax deferral and deferral of social security contributions can be mentioned. Businesses can also benefit from consultancy assistance (Versli Lietuva, Lithuanian Innovation Centre). However, here again, the key to making such support mechanisms really help business is not to delay.
Business restructuring can be achieved not only through commercial means, but also through legal means by initiating a restructuring process. Restructuring allows, with the help of the court, to find a compromise with creditors, to agree on the repayment of accumulated debts according to an agreed plan, to preserve the most important contractual relationships and to rethink the business strategy, by abandoning the loss-making activities of the business and focusing on the “healthy” part of the business. Restructuring before the tipping point may be the most realistic option to save the business.
Naturally, at one stage or another, many businesses face operational downturns and financial challenges. Sometimes it is the cyclical nature of business that makes it difficult for businesses to properly assess whether the challenges they are facing are just a temporary and non-threatening phase, or whether they are financial difficulties that need to be addressed proactively and immediately. When in doubt, a “sideways glance” and insights from external experts can really help to identify the problems and develop a clear plan to overcome them, so that bankruptcy is an option that the business does not need.
In the past, nobody was surprised when botulinum toxin (beauty injections) injections were performed in even the smallest hairdressers or beauty salons. Now it is well known that such procedures can only be carried out by professionals, so when they are needed, they are often rushed to beauty and health clinics. However, there are still situations where, for years, cosmetologists or other beauty professionals who have never had any medical training have been giving injections in clinics. Can an employer be held liable if an employee is not properly licensed and has failed to “follow” or ignored the legal requirements? Who is to blame in such a case if the service is provided as if illegally – the clinic or the professional?
Andra Mažrimaitė, an attorney at law in the Life Sciences and Healthcare Regulatory Subgroup of the law firm Ellex Valiunas, stresses that beauty and health clinics should pay very serious attention to the competences of their specialists performing invasive aesthetic procedures, as not only the specialist, but also the clinic could be held liable in such cases. Who can perform invasive procedures?
“Ellex Valiunas‘ lawyer says that in the past, a more liberal practice had developed in Lithuania, allowing certain aesthetic medicine procedures to be performed by a wider range of specialists. However, on 21 March 2023. The Supreme Court of Lithuania clarified that such procedures can only be carried out by doctors of a certain specialty. This clarification tightened the regulation of the sector and set clear boundaries on competences.
“In other countries, such as the Scandinavian region or Switzerland, general nurses can be authorised to perform invasive procedures under the supervision of a doctor, but in Lithuania the legal framework is stricter, so procedures are limited to specialist doctors,” says Andra Mažrimaitė.
According to Lithuanian medical norms, injections of botulinum toxin, hyaluronic acid preparations, mesotherapy and biorevitalization procedures can only be performed by:
A dermatovenerologist,
A doctor of plastic and reconstructive surgery,
Maxillofacial surgeon,
Oral and maxillofacial surgeon.
“Lithuanian legislation clearly regulates who can perform botulinum toxin injections, hyaluronic acid injections, mesotherapy and biorevitalization. If a clinic employs a specialist who is not qualified and allows them to carry out such procedures, the employer may be legally liable. The law provides that an employer who is aware of an employee’s lack of competence and allows him to provide prohibited services may be subject to administrative or even criminal prosecution. This can mean not only financial penalties, but also loss of reputation or restrictions on activities,” says Ellex Valiunas’ lawyer.
What are the potential liabilities for illegal activities?
“The illegal performance of invasive aesthetic medical procedures may be subject to administrative liability if the activity was carried out without the necessary licence or authorisation and was not of a large scale or repetitive nature. Administrative fines can range from €390 to €1 100. If the offence is repeated, the fine can reach up to €2,400,” warns Mažrimaitė.
She stresses that if a person systematically (entrepreneurially) engages in illegal activities or on a large scale, he/she may also be subject to criminal liability. In such cases, higher fines, imprisonment or even imprisonment for up to four years can be imposed. If the activity is found to have caused very significant material damage to the State, the penalty can be even more severe.
“It is also important to note that liability can be imposed not only on natural persons, but also on legal persons – companies, clinics. If the institution was aware of the illegal activities of the employee, it can be subject to fines and restrictions on its activities, and in aggravating circumstances, criminal liability. If the employee deliberately concealed his or her qualifications, the employer can challenge its liability, but this is assessed on a case-by-case basis,” she says.
As regards market surveillance, the State Service for Accreditation of Health Care Activities (SSAHCA) deals with cases (submissions, complaints) where health care institutions or professionals are operating without the necessary licences. If it is found that an establishment is providing services without suitably qualified professionals, the SACC may also revoke the healthcare establishment’s own licence.
According to Ms Mažrimaitė, even if a health care professional is working with a medical practice licence in another field, but provides false information about his/her competence, and yet is not qualified to carry out certain procedures, he/she may be warned, and in the case of repeated infringements, after an investigation by the HACCP, he/she may also face administrative or even criminal liability.
So who is responsible – the employer or the employee?
“If the employer was not aware of the illegal activity and it was not objectively possible to check it, for example if the employee submitted false documents or withheld information about his/her qualifications, only the professional can be held responsible. However, in each case, it is assessed whether the employer has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the activity is lawful. If it is found that the employer did not check the worker’s qualifications carefully enough, or tolerated illegal activities, the employer may also be held liable,” she says.
It is important to remember that a legal person (clinic or salon) can be held liable if there is reasonable evidence that it has knowingly allowed illegal activities to take place or has failed to provide the necessary supervision: “If an establishment has been operating for a long period of time without adequate controls or has allowed staff to carry out unauthorised procedures, it may be subject to administrative fines, restrictions on its activities, or even the revocation of its licence. Employers therefore need to pay particular attention to staff selection and performance monitoring”, says the expert.
How to protect yourself from risks?
“Andra Mažrimaitė, an attorney at Ellex Valiunas, gives some tips on how a clinic can protect itself from similar situations and avoid risks:
Employee screening: before hiring, it is necessary to check whether the specialist is authorised to perform specific procedures. This can be done on the dedicated website of the HACCP.
Clear contracts of employment: employers should establish clear contractual conditions to ensure that the worker takes responsibility for his/her qualifications and legal activities.
Internal procedures and controls: there must be continuous monitoring of the services provided by staff and whether they are appropriate to their qualifications.
Adequate information to clients: ensure that clients are clearly informed of the qualifications of professionals and their right to provide certain services.
According to the lawyer, it is important for beauty and health clinics not only to ensure high quality services, but also to protect themselves from legal risks. When recruiting professionals, it is necessary to check their qualifications carefully and to clearly regulate the limits of liability. A responsible approach and preventive measures will help to avoid unpleasant consequences and ensure safe and legal services for clients.
The adoption by the European Union (EU) in 2007 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, better known as the Rome II Regulation, harmonised at EU level the conflict-of-laws rules applicable to non-contractual obligations between Member States. The European Commission’s report on the application of Rome II, published a few weeks ago, analyses how the Regulation has been applied in the Member States, what challenges have arisen in practice and how Rome II could be improved.
The Rome II framework and basic rules
Rome II determines the law of the country applicable to non-contractual obligations in civil and commercial relations. Rome II applies at EU level, with the exception of Denmark, and is characterised by its universality – the rules set out in the Regulation apply regardless of the residence or nationality of the parties to the dispute. It can also refer to the law of a third country if the rules of the Regulation require it to apply to a particular non-contractual legal relationship. The substantive scope of Rome II is defined in Article 1, explicitly providing for what the Regulation does not apply to, e.g. non-contractual obligations arising out of the violation of privacy and rights relating to the person, including defamation, non-contractual obligations arising out of family relationships and relationships which are considered to have similar effects under the applicable law, including maintenance obligations, etc.
Article 14 of Rome II establishes the right of the parties to agree on the law applicable to their non-contractual obligations. In the absence of such an agreement, Article 4 of the Regulation establishes a three-step general rule: the first part establishes the lex loci damni rule, according to which a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort is governed by the law of the country in which the damage occurred; the second part provides that where both persons have their habitual residence in the same Member State at the time of the occurrence of the damage, the law of that State applies, not the law of the place where the damage was caused; and the third part provides for an exception based on a close connection. The third part of the escape clause provides that, where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the tort is manifestly more closely connected with a party other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2, the law of that other party applies.
Articles 4 to 13 of Rome II lay down separate rules for specific torts (e.g. product liability, unfair competition, environmental damage, etc.), unjust enrichment, pre-contractual relations and negotiorum gestio.
The Commission’s report indicates that, while the Rome II Regulation has largely achieved its objectives, certain areas have highlighted shortcomings that require attention. The main ones are discussed below.
Identified shortcomings and possible changes to Rome II
One of the main shortcomings identified in the report relates to non-contractual obligations arising from breaches of privacy and personal rights, particularly in the digital space. Non-contractual obligations relating to breaches of privacy and personal rights, including defamation, were excluded from the scope of Rome II due to disagreements during the legislative process. One of the main reasons was the need to balance freedom of expression and information with the right to privacy and reputation, a balance which is achieved differently in different EU Member States. These differences and the particular emphasis placed on freedom of expression in democratic societies have ultimately prevented the adoption of a common rule on the law applicable in cases of breach of privacy.
The Commission points out that in case a rule on the law applicable to privacy and personal rights is planned to be included in Rome II, it is necessary to assess in detail the relationship of this rule with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The issues of the right to redress, which are uniformly covered by the GDPR, would not be affected in practice by the new Rome II rule. However, for aspects of the law that are not covered by the GDPR, this provision may have significant consequences.
In addition, the Commission also stresses the need to assess that the current regulatory framework facilitates the use of prosecution strategies such as strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as SLAPPs. The Commission stresses that the phenomenon of SLAPPs confirms that choice of law and jurisdiction can lead to abuse and that, therefore, in the context of the consideration of the recast of the Rome II Regulation, the new rule applicable to personal moral rights should apply to all cases of breaches of privacy and rights relating to the person, irrespective of whether they are brought in an abusive manner.
Another problem identified by the Commission relates to collective redress where a group of victims is affected, e.g. cases involving several EU Member States, such as cases of restrictive practices, prospectus liability, mass torts, etc. Where a collective action seeks damages for all victims in a group, the place of occurrence of the damage is determined for each claim and for each victim separately. As a result, a court dealing with collective redress cases may need to apply several different substantive laws to the various claims of the members of the group.
The application of several substantive laws often complicates the assessment of a case, increases the cost and duration of litigation and can discourage consumer movements. On the other hand, the alternative approach of applying different laws depending on whether individual or collective actions are brought for collective redress can affect the clarity of the legal rules, which in turn can reduce legal certainty. In the Commission’s view, if the Rome II Regulation were to be revised, more attention should be paid to the issues discussed.
The Commission has also drawn attention to the need for legal systems to adapt to the challenges posed by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and ongoing technological progress. As the approaches to dealing with the complexities associated with the increasing use of AI are still under development, it is difficult to assess with certainty at this stage whether Rome II should be complemented by specific rules. Most Member States acknowledged that practical experience in dealing with choice of law issues in IoT cases is limited, and while potential problems were mentioned, they were not specified in detail. In the Commission’s view, the question of the law applicable to choice of law for DI is potentially premature and requires further analysis.
What next?
In the light of the information provided, the Commission plans to carry out a more detailed assessment and consider whether the Rome II Regulation should be amended. If such a need arises, the Commission will consider preparing a proposal to amend or recast Rome II. In addition, the Commission will examine whether further amendments or clarifications are needed in areas where the existing rules are adequate to facilitate their application.
Today, businesses no longer need to be reminded that when they have a business idea, the first thing they should do before taking it out into the world is to register the trademark – the earlier the better. However, it is forgotten that trademarks are not just about words and symbols. Colours, sounds, even movements can nowadays be as much trademarks as traditional logos or names – they form our subconscious links to the origin and quality of goods.
On the other hand, the question may naturally arise – is it really possible to prohibit third parties from using, for example, “your” colour in business? When is red more than just red and green and white more than just a combination of colours? And most importantly, what does this mean for businesses and consumers?
It’s not just logos, words and symbols that can be registered
Trademarks can indeed come in many different forms – spatial, sound, motion, colour, etc. One of the main conditions for registration is the ability of the mark to distinguish the goods and services of one business from those of another.
There are cases where one business tries to imitate the distinctive features of another, but not through its name or logo. In this way, imitation can be difficult to detect, as it takes the form of non-obvious and probably pre-planned actions.
For example, a competitor’s marketing communication uses colour motifs, design solutions, shapes, perhaps even sounds, which the consumer unknowingly associates with the other brand’s goods and services and their qualitative characteristics. It can be difficult to stop such actions by a competitor, especially without adequate protection in advance.
Orange and white for Omniva’s brand
In Lithuania, it is still rare for a business to register its trademark as a colour or combination of colours. By obtaining such a registration, a business could, in principle, prohibit others from using the protected (or similar) colour in their commercial activities.
Registering such trademarks is really difficult, as the statistics show. Today, there are only three successfully registered colour marks in the trademark database of the Republic of Lithuania, including the green and white combination of Zalgiris Kaunas. A number of businesses have tried to gain a monopoly over a particular colour, but a large number of them have failed.
However, last week, more than a year after the filing date of the application, the Appeals Division of the State Patent Bureau finally upheld the appeal of AS EESTI POST, operating in Lithuania through its subsidiary UAB Omniva LT, and agreed to register the combination of orange and white. The company succeeded in registering another colour mark, the colour orange itself, separately from the orange and white combination.
The marks are registered for goods such as metal parcel boxes, post office boxes, as well as for postal, courier and related services. It will therefore be much more difficult to see post offices in Lithuania “coloured” in orange or orange and white that are not related to Omniva.
Ordinarily regarded as having no distinctive character
It is the practice of the courts that colours, by their very nature, are less likely to provide precise information. This is all the more so because their attractiveness makes them a common and widespread feature in the advertising and marketing of goods and services. Therefore, except in exceptional circumstances, colours are normally considered to be devoid of distinctive character. It is extremely rare that when you see a particular colour in your mind’s eye you immediately associate it with a particular commercial entity.
However, it is recognised that colours can become distinctive when they are used intensively and businesses can demonstrate that consumers associate the colour with their goods and services. One of the most prominent internationally known examples is Milka chocolate. When you see the light purple colour in the chocolate section, you probably don’t feel the need to read the name to know what it is. In Lithuania, Omniva has now demonstrated such recognition.
More registrations of colour and other rarer trademarks can be expected in Lithuania in the future, as successful examples are slowly emerging. So for businesses that want to stand out from their competitors, it is worth taking a broader look at trademark protection options. It may be that a distinctive colour, a loud sound or even a video animation will eventually become one of the cornerstones of success, helping to build loyalty and market appeal.
The Arbitration Association of Central and Eastern Europe (ArbCEE) has published its comprehensive overview Take a Seat – A Guide to Arbitration Seats in Central & Eastern Europe, offering an analysis of arbitration frameworks across the region.
Maria Teder, Counsel at Ellex in Estonia, is the co-author of the Estonia chapter, which highlights the specific features of the Estonian arbitration landscape, notably that:
Estonia generally follows the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The report highlights some of the more notable the deviations.
Unlike in other known jurisdictions, court proceedings related to arbitration in Estonia are not public.
The number of arbitration awards annulled in Estonia is very low. However, the recognition and enforcement procedure in courts tends to be slow.
The state fee for arbitration-related court applications in Estonia is relatively low.
Take a Seat is a valuable resource for businesses, legal advisors and arbitrators operating in the CEE region and seeking more detailed insight into procedural frameworks and court practice in each jurisdiction.
When a bank sends an AML-inquiry – what does it mean for your business? One of the key responsibilities of a bank is to monitor and ensure the transparency of financial transactions. As part of this duty, banks may send companies AML (Anti-Money Laundering) inquiries. These requests can often cause confusion or raise questions for businesses — why are they being sent, what do they mean, and how should you respond? In this article, Marko Kairjak and Elina Lorens explain what companies should keep in mind.
AML-inquiries are part of the bank’s mandatory due diligence process, designed to meet anti-money laundering requirements. A bank typically sends such a request when it needs additional information about the background of certain transactions, the source of funds, or the company’s general business activity. This need may arise due to factors like unusual transaction volumes, the geographic location of a transaction partner, or other risk-based indicators used in routine monitoring.
Many companies do not have a dedicated client manager or contact person at the bank, meaning the bank might not have up-to-date knowledge of the business. In such cases, further clarification is necessary. Receiving an AML-inquiry is a standard part of regulatory compliance and does not mean that the bank suspects wrongdoing or that there is an immediate problem. However, it’s important to remember that any responses given to the bank may later be used as evidence in proceedings — including tax or competition-related matters. This is why it’s crucial to provide thoughtful and well-considered answers.
When responding to an AML-inquiry, it is advisable to provide thorough, transparent explanations and all relevant supporting documents as early as possible. Doing so can help avoid follow-up queries and save time and resources for both sides. That said, it’s important to be aware that while banks may be willing to answer general questions, they usually do not provide detailed explanations about the reasoning behind specific AML-inquiries. Companies should therefore do their best to interpret and respond to the questions based on the information provided, as banks are not required — and often are not able — to elaborate further.
It’s worth emphasizing that receiving such a request does not mean the company is under suspicion or investigation. It is a routine part of compliance procedures that banks carry out regularly to ensure legal and secure operations.
AML-inquiries should be viewed as an opportunity to help the bank better understand your business model and financial operations. A constructive, cooperative approach not only makes the process smoother but also builds a stronger foundation for working with the bank in the future.
