The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita reported on a Polish Patent Office decision, case file Sp. 371/07, regarding the Latin slogan “primus inter pares“. The PPO decided that Niezależne Zrzeszenie Studentów (Independent Students’ Union, NZS) registered this mark in bad faith. The PPO based its findings on the fact that NZS’s director used to be a member of Zrzeszenie Studentów Polskich (Polish Students Association, ZSP). This is the organization that opposed the registration of “primus inter pares” and which has used this slogan since the early sixties. ZSP had also previously tried to register the same trade mark in 1989. Both Parties may lodge a complaint to the Administration Court.
Archive for: May, 2008
The Supreme Court in its judgment of 24 May 2005 case file I KZP 13/05 interpreted the meaning of the term “introducing to market” and clarified the provisions of Article 305(1) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, before amendments of 2007.
Anyone marking goods with a counterfeit trademark for the purpose of introducing them on the market or introducing on the market goods bearing such trademark, shall be liable to a fine, limitation of freedom or imprisonment for a period of up to two years.
The Supreme Court defined the term “introduction to market” as a passing on of goods labelled with a fake trade mark for the first time by a producer or importer of those goods. A subsequent sale of such a product should not therefore be recognized as “introduction to market” and could not therefore be the subject of criminal proceedings.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 March 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 2091/07 ruled that the request for restitution of a term to file a request on rehearing is subject to article 58 of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments.
§ 1. If the deadline is infringed it may be rescheduled at the request of an interested party if it appears probable that the infringement was not caused by that party.
§ 2. A request to reschedule the deadline should be made within 7 days of the reason for the deadline’s infringement coming to an end. However, the actions for which the deadline was set must be carried out simultaneously with the request being made.
§ 3. It is not possible to reschedule the deadline for making the request referred to in § 2.
However, provisions of article 243(1) deals with the time limits set by the Polish Patent Office, while the deadline for The request for restitution of a term to file a request on rehearing is a term defined in the APC.
1. Unless otherwise stipulated in this Law, where in the course of proceedings a time limit to perform an act requisite, under this Law, for continuance of the proceeding has not been observed, the Patent Office may, at the party’s request, restore the time limit, provided that the party provides a plausible explanation that non-observance was without fault on its part.
2. Subject to paragraph (4), the request referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the Patent Office within two months from the date on which the reason for non-observance has ceased to exist, however not later than within six months from the date of the expiry of that time limit. At the same time, the requesting party shall be required to perform the act in respect of which the time limit was fixed.
3. A time limit to submit the request referred to in paragraph (2) shall not be restorable.
4. Where a decision has been taken on discontinuance of the proceeding for the reason of failure to observe a time limit for performance of a specified act, that decision, at the party’s request for re-examination of the matter, may be reversed, provided that the party provides in the request a plausible explanation that the non-observance was without fault on its part, while performing, at the same time, the act in respect of which the time limit was fixed.
5. Where the time limit for filing an application for the purpose of preserving the right of earlier priority or the time limit for furnishing a document expires on a day on which the Patent Office is closed to the public, the application or the document received on the first subsequent day on which the Patent Office is open to the public shall be deemed to have been received within the time limit concerned.
6. In respect of time limits, to which paragraph (1) is not applicable, and the non-observance of which has been caused by exceptional circumstances, the provisions on suspension of the course of negative prescription caused by acts of God shall apply accordingly. In such cases, the Patent Office shall give orders after having been furnished with relevant evidence by the interested party.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6), the Patent Office shall secure the reception at any time of day of letters delivered by interested persons.
The fact that this applies only to time limits set by the PPO is showed in wording of article 243(2) of the IPL. This whole provisions of article 243 of the IPL apply only to certain categories of terms. This limitation results from the wording of this provision.
The Polish Patent Office issued a decision case act signature Sp. 161/07, regarding the registration of Chantal trade mark. Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe Chantal Roman Godek applied for CHANTAL trade mark registration in classes 3 and 5 in 2002. The PPO issued its positive decision and registered CHANTAL R-170165 trade mark on 16 December 2006. Chanel opposed. The PPO acknowledged the reputation of Chanel mark and similarity of goods, however the Opposition Board also concluded that both marks are not alike in this manner that it would lead to the risk of consumers confusion. The Board also noted that the clientele to which those products are directed differs. The decision is not final and is not binding.