Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » 2009

Archive for: September, 2009

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 211/09

September 29th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 September 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 211/09 held that the prerequisite for registration as an industrial design is the recognition that there is the “appearance of the whole or a part of a product”, and therefore the subject of the application is visible on the outside. This assumption was based on the provisions of Article 102(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, with subsequent amendments.

Any new and having individual character appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, colours, shape, texture or materials of the product and its ornamentation, shall constitute an industrial design

The conditions of novelty and individual character should be examined later. An invisible item, hidden from the visual perception of the buyer, or the “end user” (consumer) does not constitute an industrial design. It does not have a form of “a product” which meas its appearance. It’s not about the appearance of the component of a product which is visible after separated from the whole, but it is about the possibility to get visually acquainted with it when you buy it, and especially – during the so-called normal use.

Wzór Przemysłowy 9737

This case concerned the industrial design “Ogranicznik wylewu” (in English: overflow limiter), Rp-9737. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Personal data protection, case I OSK 174/08

September 26th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The biggest Polish telecommunication company – Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. posted on its website an offer to sell its databases. This offer was addressed to research and telemarketing companies, BTL advertising agencies, insurance companies and banks. TP proposed a disclosure of private telephone numbers of its subscribers as part of the database. Through this service the company was preparing a database of phone numbers compatible with the order placed and then it passed the database on a CD for a client with a protocol of receipt. The phone numbers could be selected or sorted according to geographical criteria.

The Inspector General for Personal Data Protection ordered not to disclose of personal data of subscribers of Telekomunikacja Polska’s who are consumers within the meaning of Article 22¹ of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with subsequent amendments, to third parties in the future.

Article 22¹
The consumer shall be deemed to be any natural person who performs acts in law which are not directly connected with his economic or professional activity.

The prohibition was not allowed without fulfilling one of the conditions of Article 23(1) of the Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of October 29, 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of July 6, 2002, No. 101, item 926, with subsequent amendments.

Article 23
1. The processing of data is permitted only if:
1) the data subject has given his/her consent, unless the processing consists in erasure of personal data,
2) processing is necessary for the purpose of exercise of rights and duties resulting from a legal provision,
3) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract,
4) processing is necessary for the performance of tasks provided for by law and carried out in the public interest,
5) processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interests pursued by the controllers or data recipients, provided that the processing does not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subject.

The GIODO held that according to Article 159(1) of the Polish Act of 16 July 2000 on Telecommunications Law – TLA – (in Polish: Prawo telekomunikacyjne), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 171, item 1800 with subsequent amendments, phone numbers are deemed as the telecommunications secrecy. Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 November 2007 case file II SA/Wa 1252/07 dismissed this case and TP S.A. decided to file a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 26 January 2009 case file I OSK 174/08 dismissed the cassation and held that Article 159(1) TLA provides for stronger data protection than the provisions of Article 23 of the PPD and therefore it will be used as a basis for legalizing the processing of telecommunications secrecy.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1018/08

September 24th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

To coin a paraphrase, sex always sells when it comes to news reporting — so that was the reason why I chose such a topic. TVP S.A. – Polish public broadcasting corporation applied for registration for word-figurative sign SeXemisja (in English: SeX screening/broadcasting) in classes 9, 38, 41, Z-294432.

The Polish Patent Office (PPO) refused to grant trade mark protection because of the earlier registered word trade mark SEKSMISJA R-116200 (in English: sexmission) owned by Studio Filmowe Zebra in Warszawa. The right for protection was granted on 13 December 1999. It was registered in classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42. The PPO has ruled that TVP’s sign is similar to the SEKSMISJA trade mark mainly in the visual aspect. According to PPO, the graphics used in TVP’s sign distinguish the word “sex” and the middle letter “e” is not visible, so that the recipient can read it in the same way.

TVP has filled an appeal complaint before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw (VAC), arguing that PPO erred while testing the similarity of signs. According to TVP’s representative the words “emisja” (screening/broadcasting) and “misja” (mission) differ conceptually and consumers will be able to distinguish between those two disputed signs without a risk of being confused as regards the origin of goods and services.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 September 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1018/08 annulled the contested decision. Judge Malgorzata Grzelak ruled that the PPO did not explain why visual similarity played dominant role in this case. The Court held that PPO should also specify what is the concept of a regular recipient of these signs. The Office has to assess the degree of attention of consumers of these goods and services and, in addition, the PPO must refer to all allegations raised by the TVP S.A.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Categories: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | similarity of signs | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

Unfair competition, case III CZP 58/09

September 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its order of 19 August 2009 case file III CZP 58/09 interpreted the provisions of Article 18(1) pt 5 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments. The Court ruled that a party who has suffered fees, other than commercial margin for acceptance of goods for sale (the so-called shelves’ charges) may require return improperly received benefits in this way.

Categories: Art. 18 CUC | Polish Supreme Court | unfair competition delict.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 441/06

September 16th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Zino Davidoff’s attempted to invalidate the Polish trade mark for COOL WOMAN R-164594 registered in class 3 for goods such as for perfumery products including perfumes, toilet water, lavender water, cologne water and deodorants for personal use and owned by A&S Parfume Factory, a Polish company from Katowice.

The Swiss Company, being the owner of the Polish registered trade mark DAVIDOFF COOL WATER R-71968 and other International and Community trade marks, argued that COOL WATER brand had gained world renown and that the company incurred significant expenses in the brand’s promotion and advertising in Poland in the years 2002-2004. The Company from Fribourg alleged that A&S took the advantage of reputation of Davidoff’s trade marks.

A&S further argued that there was no risk of confusion because the word “cool” has no distinctive character and it appears in many trade marks registered in class 3 for cosmetics. There are 26 marks including the word “cool” that were registered under the Madrid Agreement procedure and 38 marks registered at the national level. The company from Katowice claimed that both elements had a clear meaning for buyers and that both of these English words were well-known to Polish consumers. A&S also argued that it is the Davidoff brand which has reputation – not its Cool Water trade marks.

The PPO in its decision case file Sp. 441/06 rejected the motion brought by Zino Davidoff. According to Polish Patent Office the word “cool” does not possess “the dominant meaning”, because it is included in different previously registered signs. The disputed marks, when assessed in their entirety, are not sufficiently similar to lead to a risk of consumer confusion regarding the origin of the goods. Therefore, the argument based on (the use of) the reputation of Davidoff’s trade marks was also regarded as unfounded.

The decision is not final. Both parties may appeal to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1022/08

September 11th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 19 June 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 278/08 dismissed a complaint on the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the refusal to grant the right of protection for “clim PUR” Z-270334 trade mark applied for the goods in class 3. VALEO SERVICE société par actions simplifiée filed a cassation complaint.

R-221567

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 June 2009 case file II GSK 1022/08 held that the Court is not alone entitled to precise (supplement or refine) of the allegations included in the cassation complaint, or making hypotheses in this regard, sanctioning so to say its deficiencies. The interpretation of the scope and direction of a complaint is also not permissible, because the cassation appeal should be drafted in a such way that there would be no questions of its interpretation.

Trade mark law, case I ACa 228/08

September 9th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

First, I owe my respectable readers a short explanation what Jarzebiak is.

Jarzebiak is a fruit vodka made of rowan infusion with the addition of fruit distillate and wine distilate and caramel. The drink has bright bronze colour, sometimes there is light or settlements.

One of the varieties of jarzebiak is “jarzebiak izdebnicki”, with the traditions of production reaching the sixteenth century. It is produced in Izdebnik (Lanckorona municipality). This dry vodka with the addition of rowan, herbs and young shoots of pine was also produced at Izdebnik’s manor of Archduke Rainer Habsburg in distillery called “Factory of Health Vodkas and Liquers” in XIX century.

The “Rowan Jarzebiak Vodka” brand is one of the oldest and most recognizable quality vodkas in Poland. The Company Polmos from Sieradz made this vodka as its flagship product. In April 2006, The Company Polmos from Lublin began production of its own jarzebiak. Polmos from Sieradz sued Polmos from Lublin before the civil court, arguing that Polmos Lublin was illegally using the Jarzebiak name for its products. Polmos from Sieradz based those arguments on the fact that, in 1989, the state-owned and subsequently privatized Polmos Companies were engaged in the division of the trade mark portfolio of their State’s monopolistic predecessor. The Jarzebiak Rowan Vodka brand was acquired by Polmos from Sieradz. The Company registered this mark in the Polish Patent Office in 2007, R-204893.

R-204893

Polmos from Sieradz argued that Polmos Lublin committed an act of unfair competition by exploiting the reputation of the Polmos Sieradz product, at the same time damaging the Jarzebiak brand because Polmos Lublin produced less tasteful vodka with a lower alcohol content (36 percent, while that of Polmos Sieradz was 40 percent). This in consequence also allowed Polmos from Lublin to offer a cheaper product.

Polmos Lublin considered its competitor’s arguments unfounded, arguing that jarzebiak was a generic name that identified a type of drink: a rowan-based vodka. In Polmos Lublin’s opinion, such a term could not be monopolized by any company. The Lublin company also noted that the labels of the respective vodkas were very different and argued that customers would not be misled as to which company was a producer of ‘real’ jarzebiak vodka.

Jarzebiak Lublin

The District Court and the Appellate Court agreed with Polmos from Lublin’s arguments. The Appellate Court in its judgment case file Categories: Polish Appeallate Court | Polish District Court | similarity of signs | unfair competition delict.

Trade mark and Press law, VI SA/Wa 2135/08

September 9th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On March 2003, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark 1000 Jolek R-142003 for Oraczewski Roman Oficyna Wydawnicza PRESS-MEDIA from Mielec for goods in Class 16 such as magazines, brochures, crosswords, periodicals.

On October 2003, Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o. o. from Częstochowa filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for the trade mark 1000 Jolek R-142003. Technopol based its opposition on articles 9(1)(i) and 8(1) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments.

(1) Registration of a trade mark for goods of the same kind shall not be permissible where:
i) it resembles a mark registered on behalf of another enterprise to such an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity

Article 8(1)
A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence.

Technopol argued that 1000 Jolek was similar to a series of crosswords periodicals which include magazines marked by a noticeable number in conjunction with the word “panoramic” (in Polish: panoramiczny), i.e. trade marks such as 100 PANORAMICZNYCH R-109471, 200 PANORAMICZNYCH R-105389, or 1000 PANORAM R-126399. According to Technopol, the disputed trade mark duplicated the distinctive element of Technopol’s marks – the form of a numeric element. In Technopol’s view, if the word “Jolki” is omitted it only remains a white figure on a red background. In this situation, the average recipient will identify this sign with a series of Technopol’s publications which have been known for many years. Technopole emphasized that it was the leader in the market for crossword magazines publishing that started in 1994 by introducing the first issue of crossword magazine 100 PANORAMICZNYCH (100 Panoramic). Then Oraczewski began to compete with Technopole by puting on the market crossword magazines entitled in an identical manner, where the leading element a multiple number of 100 was exposed, and the numbers were connected with the word “panoramic” or “crosswords”. According to Technopol, the success of its titles lay precisely in the simplicity of communicating with its customers; Oraczewski took advantage of Technopol’s success in creating of such excellent titles. Technopol also argued that its signs make the so-called “family”, a series of trade marks used to mark Poland’s most popular series of games magazines, which can be more easily identfied through the common element – the number “100″ or its multiples, which is also perceived by the public as information about the goods originating from the same company.

PRESS-MEDIA argued that the disputed trade mark is descriptive in its phonetic aspect, since the number “1000″ combined with the word “Jolek (which defines the type of crossword) causes the trade mark to lack concrete distinctive character. Crucial for the distinctive character of the disputed trade mark is its graphics consisting of the maroon background, the composition of the number 1000 and “Jolek” which are written in fanciful font. PRESS-MEDIA also argued that digits (numbers) only, as well as numbers with words such as “crosswords”, “panoramic”, “panorama”, “sudoku” are purely informational signs with regard to journals with crosswords and other logical exercises. These signs inform of the quantity and/or types of logical exercises/crosswords available in a magazine/publication. PRESS-MEDIA also mentioned that OHIM has repeatedly refused to grant to Technopol trade mark registrations for numbers as trade marks for goods in class 16. See CTM applications such as 150 no. 00466549, 250 no. 004665592, 350 no. 004665601, 222 no. 004665618, 333 no. 004665683, 555 no. 004665709 and Community Trade Marks such as 100 SUDOKU no. 004635711 and 200 SUDOKU no. 004635736. In its decision of April 2009, the PPO rejected Technopol’s oppostion. The company filed a complaint.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 February 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2135/08 ruled that the protection of a press title which is also a trade mark for a crossword magazine does not exclude the possibility of obtaining the right of protection by another entrepreneur for the press title containing the same elements (numbers), if these signs can be easily distinguished in the trade. The provisions included in article 132(4) 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 of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments, permit a convergence of these elements, which on the press-market are in a common use, which also excludes the possibility of monopolisation of the use of such phrases.

3. The protection of a trade mark which contains the signs referred to in Article 131(2)(ii)-(iv) and the symbols referred to in Article 131(2)(v), or signs which relate to the origin of the goods, shall not prevent a trade mark containing the same elements from being granted a right of protection on behalf of another undertaking for identical or similar goods, provided that the both trade marks remain easily distinguishable in the course of trade.

4. Paragraph (3) shall apply accordingly to press-titles as trade marks that contain words or combinations of words customary used in the press-market.

What is more interesting the Polish court acknowledged that this rule is also reflected in the foreign case-law concerning conflicts of trade marks and press titles and pointed out to two judgments of the German Bundesgerichtshof of 1 March 2001, case act signatures I ZR 211/98 and I ZR 205/98, that concerned TAGESSCHAU and TEGESBILD trade marks and TAGESSCHAU and TAGESREPORT trade marks, (AfP of 2001 r., no 5, pp. 385, 389). The judgment is not final and a cassation complaint has been filed.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 401/08

September 8th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 23 March 2002, “Sery ICC” Company from Paslek applied for trade mark protection for a form of plain package Z-248526 that preserves the cheese, in classes 2, 29 and 40 for goods such as dietary food for therapeutic purposes, baby food, milk and milk products, cheese, butter, margarine, milk processing and product cheeses.

Z-248526

The Polish Patent Office (PPO) acknowledged that such packaging is not suitable to distinguish any goods of one undertaking from the another, especially yellow cheese. According to the PPO, a shape of the package in the form of a rectangle, with slightly rounded sides in black, is nothing special in the cheese industry. The PPO noted that such packages are available on the Belgian market and refused to grant protection for the 3D sign. The Polish Patent Office has ruled on lack of distinctiveness. According to the PPO, a plain shape of the package in black, without any additional elements will not help the average consumer to identify a product with a particular manufacturer, or in particular, with a company with Paslek. “Sery ICC” has also applied for another 3D mark – black packaging with a label “Ser Staropolski” and the protection right was granted by the PPO, R-166989.

R-166989

The PPO reiterated that a sign must be assessed in its entirety (the shape and color) and ICC’s first application did not meet the requirements of distinctiveness which also means that it has not any distinguishing characteristics and it cannot be used to indicate the origin of the goods properly.

“Sery ICC” appealed against the PPO’s decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 July 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 401/08 has noted serious errors in the decision and ruled it void. In the application proceedings before the PPO in the case of refusal to grant the protection right, an applicant may request a re-hearing of the matter by the PPO. And the second decision may be appealed before the VAC. In accordance with article 245(1) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments, the Office must decide whether to grant protection or to refuse to do so. This is the most important and missing part in the contested decision. The VAC did not assess whether such a mark can obtain protection or not. Once the judgment is final and binding, the case will return to the Polish Patent Office for re-hearing.

Categories: Art. 245 IPL | distinctive character | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

E-access to public information, case I OSK 190/06

September 4th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 6 June 2004, the editor in chief of one of the Polish magazines requested the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration for access and disclosure of the list of entrepreneurs who have been authorized to carry out business activity in the detectives and investigation services. The spokesman of the Minister replied that the registry of companies to whom such permits and licenses have been granted, as a whole, constitutes a database within the meaning of Article 2(1) point 1 of the Polish of 27 July 2001 on Protection of Databases – APD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie baz danych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 128, item 1402 with subsequent amendments. The whole structure of the registry is subject to legal protection and the its individual availability must be understood as the possibility to receive information about a specific item of the database. There are no procedural obstacles that the interested parties may receive information or data about a particular entrepreneur to whom the permit has been issued. So, as a general rule, the access to information contained in the registry is open, it does not mean, however, that the entire database should be disclosed – as a legal structure. The magazine filed a complaint on failure to act. The case went through all instances.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 March 2006 case file I OSK 190/06 dismissed it the cassation complaint filed by the editorial team of the magazine.