In 2002 OÜ Põltsamaa Meierei Juustutööstus (PMJ) sought to register the figurative trade mark containing the words  PÕLTSAMAA KULDNE KERA (the Estonian for 'Põltsamaa golden globe') for goods in Classes 16 and 29. In March 2004 Piimandusühistu E-Piim opposed; in September 2003, following an application made that May, the term 'Põltsamaa' had been registered as a geographical indication for cheese at the request of E-Piim. E-Piim claimed that the trade mark applied for would confuse consumers as to the origin of the goods, as these did not originate from the town of Põltsamaa. The Board of Appeal dismissed the opposition since the trade mark application was filed before the geographical indication was registered; nor was there any evidence of bad faith on the part of PMJ such as to vitiate the application.

The Harju County Court dismissed the opposition on the same grounds, adding that, although 'Põltsamaa' was registered as a geographical indication, there was no evidence that cheese produced in the Põltsamaa area had special characteristics or a particular reputation. After the Tallinn District Court reached the same conclusion, E-Piim filed a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court (Case 3-2-1-1-09, February 25 2009) held that the courts have the authority to assess the circumstances surrounding the registration of a geographical indication, even where the registration itself has not been challenged. Accordingly the lower courts were entitled to rule that the registration of the geographical indication 'Põltsamaa' did not in itself prove that the geographical indication had special characteristics or a particular reputation. Also, since there is a presumption of good faith on the part of the applicant, the burden of proving bad faith lies with the opponent. If there is no evidence that consumers have been misled or are highly likely to be misled by the mark, the opposition must be dismissed. Thus even if the priority date of the geographical indication was earlier than that of the trade mark application, the opposition would still fail since the requirements for the registration of the geographical indication (regarding its special characteristics or reputation) had not been met - even though there had been no request for the invalidation of the geographical indication itself.