Archive for: November, 2008

Poland: TOKAJI as Hungarian GI can not be monopolized as trade mark

November 26th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

BWS Poland sp. z o.o. applied for trade mark registration for the word-figurative sign “SUNLINE TOKAJI FURMINT” Z-246957 on 26 February 2002, in class 33 for alcoholic beverages. The Polish company BARTEX-Bartol reported observations as to the existence of grounds that may cause a right of protection to be denied. BARTEX-Bartol claimed that Polish Patent Office (PPO) would undermine the protection of third-party rights, namely the Hungarian company Tokaji Kereskedőház Rt., because the sign that BWS applied for contained the name of the Hungarian Company. BWS explained that it imported wine from another Hungarian company and that the label “SUNLINE TOKAJI FURMINT” would not lead customers in confusion as regards the orgin of goods.

However, the Polish Patent Office issued a decision denying protection rights for a trade mark that BWS has applied for. The PPO held that granting protection rights would be against provisions included in article 131(1)(iii) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, 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, with later amendments.

Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs:
(iii) which, as for their nature, may mislead the public, in particular as to the nature, properties of the goods or, with regard to paragraph (3), as to the geographic origin thereof.

and article 131(3) of the IPL

In the case of wines and spirits, any trademark, which incorporates geographical elements discordant with the true origin of the good, shall be considered as a trademark misleading the public.

BWS appealed to the Voivodeiship Court (VAC) in Warsaw. During the hearings, the company claimed that it imported the wine from the vineyard of Vagra Pincészet Kft, which sells Tokaji Furmit Sulina wine, and that the Hungarian company agreed the sign could be used by its Polish business partner. BWS argued that Tokaj and Furmit means the region and strain of grapes. BWS presented an opinion that it applied for trade mark protection for a specific word-figurative sign, and that it had no intention to prohibit anyone to use these names.

The Polish Patent Office emphasized that TOKAJI is geographical indication of this kind of alcoholic beverage, which is used by manufacturers in Hungary as had been already agreed with the European Commission (and procedures for the arrangements are discussed with Slovakia) – this is why the PPO is obliged to take such term into account as a GI. The PPO also pointed out that the company may distribute the wine under SUNLINE name and to use it toghether with TOKAJI word, but it is not allowed to gain exclusive rights in TOKAJI and FURMIT signs. The VAC in judgment of 25 September 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1510/08, has fully agreed with PPO’s decision and dismissed BWS appeal. The judgment is not final.

Categories: Art. 131(1)(iii) IPL | Class46 post | EU law | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Patent Office | Polish courts | Polish law | Voivodeship Administrative Court | brands | geographical indication | trademark law.

Some stats

November 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In Poland, all infringement cases in the field of industrial property, copyright and unfair competition are decided by civil courts. The number of cases in the first half of 2008, was as follows:
1. Circuit Courts (first instance):

  • Industrial Property, the courts’ statistic symbol 034 – total: 25 cases.
  • Copyright, the courts’ statistic symbol 033 – total: 117 cases.
  • Unfair competition, the courts’ statistic symbol 652 – total: 93 cases.
  • Cases under the scope of protection of trademarks and designs, the courts’ statistic symbol 653 – total: 89 cases.

2. Courts of Appeal (second instance):

  • Industrial Property, the courts’ statistic symbol 034 – total: 5 cases.
  • Copyright, the courts’ statistic symbol 033 – total: 34 cases.
  • Unfair competition, the courts’ statistic symbol 652 – total: 24 cases.
  • Cases under the scope of protection of trademarks and designs, the courts’ statistic symbol 653 – tota:l 24 cases.

Categories: Polish law | copyright law | industrial property law | unfair competition law.

Poland defeated

November 18th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Judgement of the Court of Justice of European Communities in case C‑227/07, Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Poland.

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

Categories: Directive 2002/19/EC | EU law | Polish law | telecommunication law.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 1054/08

November 10th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 4 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1054/08, ruled that the requirement for the issuance of a preliminary decision by other authority or a court, is one of the conditions for stay of the administrative proceedings pursuant to article 97 § 1 point 4 of the Polish 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, but while looking for the justification that there exists the preliminary issue in a given case, one has to establish a causal connection between the settlement of the case and the preliminary issue. The lack of such connection makes the stay of proceedings under article 97 § 1 point 4 of the APC unacceptable. The issue of the infringement of the exclusive right referred to in article. 284(6) of the IPL, and civil claims relating thereto are decided by a civil court under civil procedure and the question wheather the use of industrial design that violates personal rights or property of third parties within the meaning of article 117(2) of the IPL, which come with the Polish Patent Office duties (the condition for invalidation of the rights in registration) are separate issues. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the preliminary issue occurs in this case because the civil court is a proper one to settle the matter of the infringement of an exclusive right.

This case concerned the industrial design “Butelka cylindryczna” (in English: cylindrical bottle), Rp-5873.

Wzór Przemysłowy 5873

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Categories: Art. 117 IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Patent Office | Polish courts | Polish law | Voivodeship Administrative Court | industrial designs | invalidation of a right in registration.