Vilnius District Court on June 27, 2006 took untraditional decision and annulled the Appeal Section of the State Patent Bureau decision rejecting the opposition on the validity of the designation to the Republic of Lithuania of the international trademark VP FINANCE, fig. registration No. 794668. The Court upheld the position of the plaintiff "VP Market", Ltd. arguing that the main element in defendant's trademark are letters "VP" and not the word "FINANCE" which is a descriptive element, whereas visual element stands as connection between the letters "VP" and word "FINANCE". The Court decided that trademarks are similar due to the similar main element "VP". The Court in deciding the question on similarity of services in classes 35 and 36 took into account the circumstance that although these services are listed in different classes of the Nice classification they are considered to be similar. This is so due to the fact that business management, listed in class 35, contains number of functional areas such as production, marketing, staff management, finances, accounting, whereas control of business management is actually closely linked to financial research, financial consultations and financial evaluation listed in class 36. In evaluation of likelihood of confusion the Court took into account not only the circumstance of service similarity but as well the fact that plaintiff's trademark "VP" is used by the group of its concerted companies. Therefore, consumers may think that services marked with the trademark VP FINANCE are provided by one of the companies belonging to the VP group.