The court explained that under Lithuanian law, an attorney-at-law is a person, which, amongst other things, has an attorney-at-law license. Neither the defendant, nor its employees have attorney-at-law licences.
Taking the above into account, the court concluded that the defendant’s domain names, containing the word advokatas (eng. attorney-at-law), misled the average consumer, because they could have thought that the legal services would be provided by an attorney-at-law. Since the defendant did not have an attorney-at-law licence, by registering and using such domain names, the defendant falsely claimed that he had the respective license and that is incompliant with fair commercial practices.