ELL Partnership Law Firm has achieved another significant success in the field of intellectual property rights protection. The Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia granted our client’s claim, declared the decision of the Intellectual Property Office invalid, and ordered the Office to grant legal protection to the “ArtGallery” trademark in respect of all goods for which protection had been sought.

In Administrative Case No. ՎԴ/1248/05/25, Gohar Gevorgyan, shareholder and Director of ELL Partnership Law Firm, represented the interests of System Electric Joint-Stock Company before the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia in proceedings against the Intellectual Property Office of the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Armenia.

The dispute arose from the refusal to grant legal protection in the Republic of Armenia to the “ArtGallery” word mark. The Intellectual Property Office had found that the designation “ArtGallery,” conveying the meaning of an “art gallery,” could mislead consumers in relation to goods in Class 9 of the Nice Classification and, on that basis, refused to grant legal protection to the mark.

Following the initial refusal, the company limited the list of goods for which legal protection was sought in Armenia, retaining only protective covers for electrical outlets, electrical switches, and electrical sockets. Nevertheless, following re-examination, the Intellectual Property Office upheld its refusal.

Our principal legal position in the case was that the mere inconsistency between the semantic meaning of a trademark and the goods concerned is not, in itself, sufficient to conclude that consumers are likely to be misled. Such an assessment cannot be based solely on the literal meaning of the mark. Consideration must also be given to the specific goods for which legal protection is sought, the commercial environment in which those goods are sold, and what consumers would actually understand and expect under the relevant circumstances.

We substantiated that electrical sockets, electrical switches, and related accessories are sold in specialised commercial environments for electrical equipment, lighting products, and construction materials. Under such circumstances, a consumer encountering the “ArtGallery” mark would not expect to be offered a work of art or a service related to an art gallery. Therefore, the meaning of the word “ArtGallery” alone could not constitute a sufficient basis for finding the mark misleading to consumers.

It is also noteworthy that the Court examined the manner in which the “ArtGallery” trademark is presented and established that, in the promotional materials for the product line, the sockets and switches are presented as works of art displayed in a gallery. This concept also forms the basis of the trademark’s name.

In assessing the circumstances of the case, the Court also attached importance to the distinction between the relevant product markets, finding that the market for works of art differs substantially from the market for protective covers for electrical outlets, electrical switches, and electrical sockets. In the market for construction materials, electrical equipment, and household goods, consumers would not expect to encounter works of art displayed in an art gallery and, consequently, would not be misled by the use of the “ArtGallery” mark.

As a result, having found that all legal and factual grounds necessary for granting legal protection to the “ArtGallery” trademark were present, the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia, by its judgment of 23 July 2026, granted the claim of System Electric Joint-Stock Company against the Intellectual Property Office of the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Armenia.

The Court ordered the Intellectual Property Office of the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Armenia to grant legal protection to the “ArtGallery” trademark under International Registration No. 1742111 in respect of all goods for which protection had been sought and declared invalid the Intellectual Property Office’s decision of 2 December 2024 entitled “On the Re-Examination of the Applied-for Trademark.”

The case is significant for the development of judicial practice in similar disputes, as the Court, agreeing with our position, confirmed that the literal meaning of a trademark alone is insufficient to consider it misleading to consumers. The specific goods concerned, the commercial environment in which they are sold, and what consumers actually understand and expect under the relevant circumstances must also be taken into account.

We congratulate Gohar Gevorgyan and our client on this significant victory and express our gratitude to System Electric for entrusting ELL Partnership Law Firm with the protection of its rights and legitimate interests.

Our team will continue to consistently employ the full range of available legal remedies and mechanisms to ensure the effective protection of our clients’ rights and legitimate interests.