The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Poznań in its judgment of 28 Jue 2011 case file I SA/Po 210/11 held that a subsidiary company is allowed to depreciate trade marks that were transferred to it as an apportionment, starting from the first day of a month, after one month the Polish Patent Office has granted the right of protection for these signs.
Archive for: September, 2011
Tax law, case I SA/Po 210/11
September 26th, 2011, Tomasz RychlickiTax law, case I FSK 1215/10
September 24th, 2011, Tomasz RychlickiThe Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 September 2011 case file I FSK 1215/10 ruled that activities of the Polish Artists’ Association, a collecting society which is responsible for collective management of artists’ and performers’ rights that is based on signing of licensing agreements with copyright users and collecting and distribution of royalties, is deemed as a service within the meaning of the Act on Goods and Services Tax – GSTA – (in Polish: ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług) of 11 March 2004, Journal od Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 54, item 535 with subsequent amendments, and such services are not subject to tax exemptions, because the association charges a fee from these activities, and it is not funded by membership fees.
Tax law, case I SA/Ol 270/11
September 24th, 2011, Tomasz RychlickiThe Director of a Tax office decided that a person who led undeclared but taxable economic activity is subject to VAT. This decision was based on the basis of bank statements and information provided by the auction website Allegro. The amount of the tax obligation was set out in the amount of tax due, without reduction of input tax, because the tax payer did not submit any invoices that would serve as evidence of purchase of the goods that were later resold via Allegro.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Olsztyn in its judgment of 29 June 2011 case file I SA/Ol 270/11 held that a person who conducts business activities that were undeclared to tax, has the right to deduct the input VAT due, but such person must have the purchase invoices, because without them, the tax authorities are unable to verify the prices of the goods resold.
Tax law, case I SA/Łd 762/10
September 24th, 2011, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Łódź in its judgment of 23 September 2010 case file I SA/Łd 762/10 held that a person whose account on an auction website was illegally hacked and used for sale of goods by someone else, is not obliged account to tax for such activity.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 615/10
September 7th, 2011, Tomasz RychlickiMr Roman Oraczewski Oficyna Wydawnicza PRESS-MEDIA requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the trade mark “Sto Panoramicznych” R-102530 owned by TECHNOPOL Agencja Wydawnicza Spółka z o. o. and registered for goods in Class 16 such as magazines. The PPO invalidated this trade mark and ruled that this designation is descriptive and informative, because it is carrying explicit message on the number and type of crosswords included in each copy of the magazine. TECHNOPOL filed a complaint against this decision, but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 February 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1862/09. TECHNOPOL decided to file a cassation complaint. The Comapny argued inter alia that its trade mark has acquired secondary meaning because TECHNOPOL also used similar signs, for instance “100 panoramicznych” R-102531, which is a modification of the trade mark “Sto Panoramicznych”.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 25 May 2011 case file II GSK 615/10 dismissed the complaint and ruled that the use of a sign in order to prove its secondary meaning, can not be documented by the use of other similar designation that is also a separate, registered trade mark.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 746/10
September 2nd, 2011, Tomasz RychlickiThis is the continuation of the story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1988/09“. Kraft Foods Polska filed a cassation complaint.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 July 2011 case file II GSK 746/10 dismissed the complaint and held that the reputation of the trade mark and homogenity goods bearing the signs at issue – even if they could be taken into account while assessing the likelihood of confusion – cannot challenge the established view that there is the lack of similarity between these trade marks. The Court decided that trade marks that were subject to the opposition proceedings do not contain a common element being the same surname, because the meaning of the POLO word in these trade marks is different.