Archive for: brands

New logo for Euro 2012

December 15th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Yesterday, football (and I do not want to be accused of “blasphemy” by WHITE SOX supporters so I have to add that it’s “soccer” for our US readers) fans were given a chance to become brands’ critics.

The official logo, visual identity and slogan for UEFA EURO 2012™ have been unveiled at a special event in Kyiv’s Mykhailivska Square with co-hosts Ukraine and Poland looking forward to “Creating History Together”.

I have previously reported some news with regard to Euro 2012 in posts such as “Poland: special law for Euro 2012 trade marks?“, “Poland: big Euro 2012 names“, “Poland: one beer for Euro 2012” and “Apple against Euro 2012“.

Crazy counterfeiters?

December 7th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

MIT business professor Renee Richardson Gosline has conducted research suggesting that people who buy counterfeit bags are highly likely to purchase non-counterfeit versions of their treasures at a later date (even though the two bags can’t be distinguished from one another by casual observers).

More details available at mit.edu.

Meta tags in Polish case law

October 8th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The French company Marin’s International brought a case before the Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs, located in Warsaw (in Polish: Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie Wydzial XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych). The issue concerned the use of CTMs Marin’s and Lama by the Polish company Display Flash Poland sp. z o.o., within its website in NOSCRIPT tag. The Court in a judgment case file XXII GWzt 8/09, ruled that the use of someone else’s trademark in website’s metatags infringes trade mark rights of such person, and such behaviour may be also deemed as an unfair competition delict.

I know that I should mention the opinion of the Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 22 September 2009 in joined cases C‑236/08, C‑237/08 and C‑238/08, Google France, Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, Google France v. Viaticum, Luteciel and Google France v. CNRRH, Pierre Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger, a franchisee of Unicis.

(1) The selection by an economic operator, by means of an agreement on paid internet referencing, of a keyword which will trigger, in the event of a request using that word, the display of a link proposing connection to a site operated by that economic operator for the purposes of offering for sale goods or services, and which reproduces or imitates a trade mark registered by a third party and covering identical or similar goods, without the authorisation of the proprietor of that trade mark, does not constitute in itself an infringement of the exclusive right guaranteed to the latter under Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.

(2) Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may not prevent the provider of a paid referencing service from making available to advertisers keywords which reproduce or imitate registered trade marks or from arranging under the referencing agreement for advertising links to sites to be created and favourably displayed, on the basis of those keywords.

(3) In the event that the trade marks have a reputation, the trade mark proprietor may not oppose such use under Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.

(4) The provider of the paid referencing service cannot be regarded as providing an information society service consisting in the storage of information provided by the recipient of the service within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’).

This is way more interesting if one realizes that almost month ago Google has announced that it doesn’t use the “keywords” meta tag in web search ranking.

I was wrong, domain names, case X GC 1245/03

October 6th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Well, as I wrote in my previous post – errare humanum est. My good friend Marcin Sochacki reminded me that there is an earlier judgment of the Polish court regarding the cybersquatting issue. It is a judgment of the District Court in Łódź, X Commercial Division of 22 June 2004, case file X GC 1245/03, Microsoft versus Robert Rudecki, it was decided in absentia. The case concerned microsoft.pl and microsoft.com.pl domain names. Unfortunately, I do not have an access to the text of this decision.

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on domain names“.

Wrong product placement ;)

June 10th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Gortat, in just his second NBA season, and the only player in the league from Poland, becomes a restricted free agent this summer. He has helped himself immensely with consistent performances during this playoff run, attracting attention from other teams around the league.

He also received an uncomfortable phone call last weekend from Reebok, with whom he has a shoe contract. Representatives of the company were not happy to see a picture of him from Game 1 in a Polish newspaper that prominently displayed his Michael Jordan/Nike logo tattoo on his lower right leg.

More details in the article available at fanhouse.com website.

Do not argue about copyrights and trade marks or you land in jail

March 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Indeks 73 is a new initiative created and developed on the national level in Poland at the beginning of 2008 by the people of cultural professions. Our aim is to protect freedom of artistic expression and scientific researches guaranteed by the constitution
(…)
Freedom of artistic creation and scientific research, as well as free access to cultural goods, is guaranteed in Article 73 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, and on the international level – in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 27).

This was for the begining. You may find more interesting news at indeks73.pl website.

On 10 March, Waldemar Tatarczuk (artist, performer) has sent an alert to the net about the arrest of Zygmunt Piotrowski. Piotrowski is a recognized theoretician on individual concepts of avant-garde art, he combines the art with social and political reality. The artist works at the crossroads of philosophy, visual arts and science (he developed many technical patents).

Indeks 73 learned that Piotrowski’s detention was caused by his refusal to pay the court’s ordered fine to Lew Rywin. Piotrowski argued that his property will not be disclosed to such criminals as Rywin. Of course, the court did not agree with his statement and at the request of Heritage Films (owned by Lech Rywin) ordered Zygmunt Piotrowski to serve 8 days of detention. He should be released on 13 March 2009.

The dispute between Piotrowski and Lech Rywin (Heritage Films) is pending for more than ten years. It has started as a copyright dispute regarding Zygmunt Piotrowski’s creation of word-figurative logotype “Heritage”. Piotrowski created this logo for the Polish company Heritage Promotion of Music and Art. It presented the state court porch of Elizabeth and Christopher Penderecki with “heritage” word included. In 1991, Lew Rywin used this logotype to build the image of the new company, Heritage Films. Zygmunt Piotrowski has brought a copyright infringement case and won. The court’s judgment has forced the Heritage Films company to remove the sign.

Update on March 14, 2009.
It was late when I did the post so I forgot to add something important. Indeks 73 did not learn what was the exact reason that Piotrowski was obliged to pay a fine for Heritage Films.

And as regards courts’ judgments about trade marks including “heritage” word, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Poland (SAC) has issued two opinions. I have no specific information about civil courts’ rulings. The SAC in a judgment of 14 December 2001, case file II SA 3446/01, clearly ruled.

The English word “heritage” is not a generic term for the services it was registered for, nor does it inform about its properties, quality or usefulness. Therefore “heritage” word can be used as a trade mark.

Just to remind you. Judgments of the Court of Justice of the EC in case C-3/03 P, Matratzen Concord GmbH vs. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), [2004] E.C.R. I-3657 and C-421/04, Matratzen Concord AG vs. Hukla Germany SA, [2006] E.C.R. I-2303, have been issued couple of years later. ;)

One may say, that the SAC in a judgment of 12 March 2003, case file II SA 1867/02, provided very obvious holding.

In accordance with the general rules, in the event of a collision between company name (the firm) and trade mark that has been registered with the “later precedence”, the priority shall be given to the right that existed earlier.

Thou shall not infringe trade marks

January 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

A new advertising agency has posted on its website a presentation of “the Decalogue ads”. The animation was done in Flash technology and it presented Apple’s trademark with “You shall have no other gods before me” sentence, Volvo trade mark with “You shall not kill”, Winiary trade mark “You shall not commit adultery”, Gerda trade mark “You shall not steal”. One of the founders of the agency said.

We did not want to offend anyone, but merely to rouse a debate in the industry. We did not ask advertisers about their opinion because we were acting in good faith and hoping for their high culture.

Well… I guess they should ask lawyers regarding articles 153 and 154 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.

Chapter 5
Rights of Protection for Trademarks

Article 153
1. The right of protection shall confer the exclusive right to use the trademark for profit or for professional purposes throughout the territory of the Republic of Poland.
(…)
Article 154
The use of a trademark shall, in particular, consist of:
(…)
(iii) using the trademark in advertising.

Poland: cross-border reputation

December 21st, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 7 February 1996, the American company Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol has applied before the Polish Patent Office (PPO) to register the word-figurative trade mark “TIFFANY & BROADWAY, Inc.” R-153643 in class 3 for goods such as hair care preparations, washing and cleaning preparations, teeth cleaning preparations, shoe polish, skin-care preparations, dish washing preparations, deodorants, perfumes, eau de Cologne, in class 5 for goods such as dietetic substances adapted for medical use and food for babies, in class 8 for goods such as cutlery and razors, in class 16 for paper tablecloths, in class 18 for trunks and suitcases, umbrellas and parasols, saddlery, belts, gallantry made of leather and imitation leather as well as for goods in classes 24, 25, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. The PPO granted the application on 1 April 2004. In this case the term of 8 years of trade mark application proceedings was not a joke at all.

The cancellation proceedings were started by another American company – Tiffany & Co. from New York – based on article 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 later amendments:

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

The New York’s company claimed that its trade marks had a reputation and were famous and that the Tiffany & Broadway registration was made in bad faith, leading to the watering down (early Polish translation of dilution concept) of Tiffany’s trade marks. The PPO agreed and invalidated the contested trade mark. Tiffany & Broadway appealed to the Voivodeship Administratice Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The company noted that Tiffany & Co. did not provide evidence of any business activity in Poland and that none of New York’s company trade marks had been registered in Poland. According to Tiffany & Broadway article 8(1) does not provide protection for famous marks, or marks that should be protected despite the absence of registration. The PPO responded that although it is true that the goods that are signed by Tiffany & Co trade marks are available in Poland only in the secondary circulation/market, but its trade marks are renowned and associated and perceived by consumers with luxury goods, among other things, thanks to the novel and the movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s“.

The Voivodeship Administratice Court in Warsaw dismissed the appeal in its judgment of 24 October 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 214/08. The Court held that there is no doubt regarding the reputation of TIFFANY trade mark. There are very few so strong and famous brands. In the court’s opinion the Tiffany’s trade mark is very attractive and it has huge advertising value. Tiffany has also proved its international reputation and it was not obliged to prove its existence specifically in Poland, because, in the Court’s view, the reputation is international/world wide – across borders. The VAC held that Tiffany & Broadway was aware of the existence of Tiffany’s reputation and trade mark registration for Tiffany & Broadway could lead to dilution of Tiffany’s trade marks.

Poland: special law for Euro 2012 trade marks?

December 4th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the article entitled “Nie każdy może skorzystać na Euro 2012“, the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita published recent news regarding Euro 2012 brands. According to Rzeczpospolita, all companies that would like to exploit the production of gadgets related to Euro 2012 will have to reckon on their limitations, because all the trade mark rights and patents belong to the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). Their rights will be probably clarified by a special law.

Soon there will be available a manual for companies with instructions on how to obtain a licence to use the logo and name Euro 2012. It’ll be made on the model of the manual for the 2012 Olympic Games in London. PL 2012 (which is the coordinator and overseer of preparation undertakings for Euro 2012 in Poland) also wants to cooperate with the Police and Customs officers to eliminate imports of clothing that infringe on trade marks rights.

A major challenge for organizers will be ambush marketing, because examples of this kind of activity appeared during the championships in Austria and Switzerland. To avoid such problems there will be created a so-called “clean area” around stadiums, where companies which are competitors of the tournament sponsors will not be allowed to place their ads or logos and trade marks. Also, UEFA does not want to let online bookmakers to appear or being involved in sponsorship of Euro 2012. Accordingly, all ads of online bookmakers (formally, this kind of betting is banned in Poland) should disappear from the vicinity of stadiums.

Maple® products

December 1st, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki


I wonder when will it be taken down.

Update on December 2, 2008.
The first “take down” is reported.

Update on December 4, 2008.
Next two take downs are reported. For all you who had no chances to see it let me explain to you that it is all about a short part of The Simpsons series which was taken from the episode titled “Mypods and Boomsticks“. I will try to upload it later. But there is also a strange and legally suspicious initiative I’ve noticed while searching for this file. Just check YouTube user who uses huluDotCom nickname. There is also a blog called simply mappleapple.blogspot.com.