Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Paris Convention

Trade mark law, case II GSK 466/10

July 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Aquatherm GmbH registered a single green color determined by RAL 150 60 40 as a trade mark IR-863506 for goods in Class 19 such as rigid pipes of polypropylene for the supply of drinking water and heating and air conditioning systems in houses, office buildings and industrial buildings. The Company sought the recognition of the protection of its trade mark on the territory of the Republic of Poland based on the provisions of the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks.

IR-863506

On 11 July 2006, the Polish Patent Office transmitted to the International Bureau in Geneva a notification of the grounds which prevent the protection of an international trademark to be recognised on the territory of the Republic of Poland. The PPO decided that according to Article 120 of the Polish Industrial Property Law this trade mark cannot distinguish the goods, because it is a single color and it is devoid of sufficient distinctive character.

On 20 April 2007, the Patent Office sent a letter to the International Bureau with information concerning the correction of a clerical error in the notification dated 11 July 2006, informing that the provisional refusal to recognize the protection should include Article 129(1)(ii) and Article 129(2)(i) of the IPL and not Article 120 of the IPL. At the same time, the PPO did not consider the request of the Aquatherm GmbH to initiate an administrative hearing on the correction of this error. The PPO pointed out that the correction did not change the legal basis of the notification. The difference in the numbering of Articles 120 and 129 was a result of unfortunate, in this case, close arrangement of numbers 9 and 0 on the computer keyboard.

The Polish Patent Office in its decision of 9 May 2008 case DT-IR-863 506 refused to recognize the protection. Aquatherm GmbH filed a request for re-examination of the matter, but it was dismissed by the PPO in its decision of 10 June 2009 case PT-430/08 IR-863 506. The PPO did not agree with the Aquatherm GmbH that the registration on its behalf of the earlier trade marks such as IR-832895 or IR-837655 justifies the registration of the applied sign because each case is decided according to individual circumstances. The PPO held that it has not changed, as a result of correcting errors, the legal basis of the refusal.

Aquatherm GmbH filed a complaint against these decisions. The Company argued that the PPO infringed on Article 5(2) of the Madrid Agreement because it took its decision after the expiration of one year term that is calculated from the date of the international registration of the mark. The provisions that were used as the basis for refusal, were first indicated in the letter of 20 April 2007. Aquatherm GmbH argued also that the PPO mistakenly determined that the goods included in the list of goods and services are everyday consumer goods targeted for mass audiences, and that the green color is commonly used for the determination of water supply pipes, and aqueous solutions. According to the Company, the PPO has not made an exhaustive evaluation of the evidence, in particular, it completely ignored the key evidence submitted by the company in a statement of the Polish Corporation of Sanitary, Heating, Gas and Air-Conditioning Technology which included information on whether a given color may indicate the manufacturer
on the market of installations polypropylene systems, and whether the green color used as designation of pipes or installations allows the buyers to identify these products with Aquatherm GmbH.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 December 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1452/09 dismissed the complaint. The VAC held that the provisional refusal cannot be considered ineffective. According to the Court, the PPO indicated the grounds for refusal which was in accordance with the Rule 17 of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks and the Protocol Relating to that Agreement. The Court noted that in the case of color per se its concrete distinctive ability must be interpreted in the light of public interest, which is based on the rules of the limited reduction of the availability of colors for other entrepreneurs who offer goods or services of the same kind as the goods or services covered by the registration application. The basic function of the trade mark is to guarantee the final consumer or user the identity of the origin of the goods or designated services bearing the trade mark by letting them distinguish the goods or the service of goods or services of different origin. The distinctive character of the sign is based on such features which in the minds of consumers clearly indicate that a particular product bearing a given trade mark comes from the specific company. The VAC noted that in relation to the color per se, it is assumed that the existence of primary distinctive characteristic (without any prior use) is possible only in exceptional circumstances, especially when the number of goods or services for which the mark is applied for is very limited and when the relevant market is very specific. The Court noted that the green color in relation to the applied goods is not unusual. The VAC agreed with the PPO that, in the case of green color used for the pipes used for water flow, there is a risk that consumers will associate it with nature, therefore, it should not be monopolized by one company, in particular, that this shade of green RAL 150 60 40 is also not original.

Moreover, the VAC found that the Patent Office has rightly used the example of PN-70/N-01270 standards Guidelines for marking of pipelines. The standard recommends that the painting for the identification of pipelines made of carbon steel or other materials susceptible to corrosion should be coordinated with anticorrosive painting in which the topcoat should also fulfill the function of identification. It is customary to use green for water and chemical solutions that pose no chemical and thermal threat. The Court noted that the statement of the Polish Corporation of Sanitary, Heating, Gas and Air-Conditioning Technology could be helpful to support Aquatherm position, but also found that such a document can not be regarded as expert evidence under the provisions of Polish Administrative Proceedings Code or substitute evidence for opinion polls.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 April 2011 case file II GSK 466/10 dismissed the cassation. The SAC agreed with the findings included in the judgment of the VAC and ruled that the provisional refusal to recognize the protection is, by its very nature, some kind of a general statement issued by an authorized body of the state that is the party to the Madrid Agreement, and it includes the grounds which prevent the protection of an international trademark to be recognized on the territory of the Republic of Poland. The reasons given in the notification of provisional refusal set the boundaries within which the Polish Patent Office then investigates the case and its matter. However, as it was mentioned, the notification is of a general (signaling) nature and it is clarified in a subsequent administrative proceedings. In the event of a dispute, the position included in the notification is subject to detailed examination by the administrative courts, reflecting inter alia the context of a trade mark application, the nature of the applied sign, etc. As a consequence, the reasons of a provisional refusal should be explained in general terms and take into account all the circumstances specified in the notification by the authority.

Trade mark law, II GSK 578/10

May 28th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is a sequel to a story described in “Trade mark law, case Sp. 10/08“. In July 2009, the Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for DAKAR R-174205 trade mark (registered for goods in classes 3, 27, 37), after considering the case on the basis of rich evidence supplied by both parties.

The PPO recognized inter alia the special nature of the opposed trade mark DAKAR IR-606861 (registered for goods in classes 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 41), which in addition to its traditional function of determining the origin of goods, is also the name of the famous rally raid. In explaining its position, the PPO used arguments on a function of a trade mark known as the “merchandising function” and cited D. Keeling, Intellectual Property Rights in EU Law: Free movement and competition law, Oxford, 2003. When examining the circumstances of the case, the PPO concluded that DAKAR IR-606861 trade mark is a reputed one. The PPO pointed to the existing methods for assessing the reputation – the absolute and relative. The first method takes primarily into account the percentage of a certain degree of knowledge of the trade mark on the market (as established by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 August 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 757/07). The relative method, in addition to knowledge of the trade mark, emphasizes other criteria, including market share in terms of quantity and value of goods sold, the scope and length of the advertising of the product marked with the sign, territorial and temporal scope of the use of the trade mark, licenses granted, the quality of the goods, the value of a sign in the assessment of independent financial institutions, the size of the expenditure incurred in connection with the promotion of the trade mark and the relationship to the price of substitute goods. Public opinion polls, prizes and awards, publications, press releases, rankings, reports, invoices and other business records, and various promotional materials can serve as evidence. The PPO cited the judgment of the COJ of 14 September 1999 in C 375/97, General Motors Corporation, the judgment of Supreme Administrative Court of 21 November 2006, case file II GSK 181/06 and the decision of OHIM of 25 April 2001 in case R 283/1999-3. See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07“.

When referring to the transfrontier nature of the reputation of a trade mark, the PPO found that the Paris-Dakar rally, although it takes place outside the Polish borders, has many fans, as evidenced by the data on viewing TV programs on the rally – from 550000 to over 1200000 people, which according to the PPO, proved a high popularity. The PPO cited the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 8 November 2005 case file VI SA/Wa 845/05 (VALENTINO) and the judgment of VAC of 13 March 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1626/05 (LEXUS). See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 845/05” and “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1626/05“. When deciding on the unfair advantage, the Polish Patent Office found that in this case, the Polish company will be able to count on the positive reaction of customers without spending too much money on the promotions, because they will buy the goods by associating them with the sign of the French company and consequently with the rally organized by this company.

The Polish company DAKAR from Krasne filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a jugment of 29 December 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1938/09, ruled that the word Dakar also means the capital city of Senegal, and such argument escaped PPO’s attention during the analysis of all the facts and evidence gathered. In this aspect this sign also fulfills political and economic role. Therefore, the name of Dakar has long been known as an exotic name of the city and it should not be attributed exclusively to one company. The VAC anulled the Polish Patent Office’s decision and decided that the decision was not subject to execution. Paris Dakar filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 25 May 2011 case file II GSK 578/10 overturned the questioned judgment and sent the case back for reconsideration. The SAC ruled that given the nature of Paris-Dakar business, the PPO properly established the reputation of the trade mark DAKAR IR-606861. The SAC did not agree with the criteria for assessing the reputation of a trade mark that were adopted by the VAC. The Court ruled that the reputation cannot be examined so strictly because organization of sports events is a specific activity and the reputation associated by its trade mark is also conveyed by the media.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 827/10

January 31st, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Czech entrepreneur Druchema Drużstvo pro Chemickou Vyrobu a Sluzby requested the Polish Patent Office for the invalidation of the right of protection for TEMPO R-104245 and TEMPO R-154752 trade marks registered for goods in Classes 02 and 03 such as wax paste for maintenance and renovation of car lacquer. Both trade marks are owned by INTER GLOBAL Sp. z o.o. Druchema argued that it owns TEMPO trade mark that was registered in the Czech Republic and INTER GLOBAL was for many years its sales representative in Poland and in this period the representative applied for on its own behalf and obtained trademark protection for TEMPO signs in Poland. The Polish and Czech company entered into an exclusive sales agreement, however, its provision did not include the powers to register TEMPO trade marks. INTER GLOBAL argued that it created and registered different trade marks. The PPO invalidated the rights of protection in its decisions of 5 October 2009 case files Sp. 448/05 and Sp. 449/05 . INTER GLOBAL filed a complaint against both decisions.

R-154752

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 827/10 dismissed the complaint and ruled that it was not necessary for the recognition of bad faith of the applicant for the right of protection for a trade mark, that the the contracting party has used a trade mark identical to a sign of its business partner during their commercial cooperation. It was sufficient that during the commercial cooperation the contracting party has used a trade mark that was very similar to the trademark invalidated.

R-104245

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 828/10 also dismissed the complaint and ruled that many years of cooperation between Polish and Czech entrepreneurs led to the fact that INTER GLOBAL had clear information about Druchema, and how it designates its products. For these reasons, by applying for the protection for the mark in question that was very similar to a trade mark used by Druchema and doing it without its consent and knowledge, INTER GLOBAL was clearly acting in bad faith. Both judgments are not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1095/10

December 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 20 August 2007, the Polish company ALTA Sp. z o.o. from Poznań applied for the figurative trade mark Z-329092 for goods in Class 5, 42 and 44. The Board of the Red Cros submited to the Polish Patent Office observations as to the existence of grounds that cause a right of protection to be denied. The PPO refused to grant the right. ALTA filed a complaint against this decision.

Z-329092

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1095/10 noted that Article 131(2)(iii) of the Polish Industrial Property Law provides that the right of protection shall not be granted for a sign, if it incorporates the abbreviated names or symbols (armorial bearings, flags, emblems) of other countries, international organisations, as well as official signs, hallmarks indicating control and warranty adopted in other countries, if the prohibition of registration follows from international agreements, unless the applicant is able to produce an authorisation issued by a competent authority, which authorises him to use such signs in the course of trade. The Court ruled that this prohibition applies not only to those symbols as such, but it also prohibits the registration and use of the trade marks that are some kind of imitation of those symbols and copying the relevant characteristics of the heraldic symbols is this kind of imitation. The PPO rightly found that the trade mark in question contains the image of the cross which is at least an imitation of the symbol of the International Red Cross because of similar color (red) and shape. Placing the image of a bear on the cross does not change the fact that this trade mark contains also an image of the cross imitating the Red Cross sign. The provision of Article 131(2)(iii) of the IPL excludes the possibility of granting trade mark rights to the signs that contain symbols of international organizations (if there is no consent of the holder), so other elements of the mark does not matter. Thus placing in the applied sign the image of a cross which is at least an imitation of the International Red Cross symbol, deprives the sign the possibility to be registered as a trade mark. The judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 779/09

December 1st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 121/09“. HOUSE Spółka z o.o filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 September 2010 case file II GSK 779/09 dismissed the case. The Court agreed with the VAC that ICT had the status of “owner” of the trade mark within the meaning of Article 161 of the IPL in connection with Article 6 septies of the Paris Convention although ICT at the date of the application of the questioned trade mark, i.e. on 11 March 1994, was not entitled under Article 161 of the IPL to XL XAVIER LAURENT IR-763083 trade mark, since the registration has been granted on 23 September 1999, and the protection of international registration lasts until 10 July 2001.

IR-763083

The SAC ruled that the provisions of Article 8(1) of the TMA concerns the substantive conditions of registration of the mark (it is not allowed to register a sign, which is contrary to the law or the rules of social coexistence) and it was referred to in Article 29 of TMA as a basis for invalidation of the registration of the trade mark, if the conditions provided in Article 8(1) were met. However, Article 161(1) and (2) of the IPL concerns only a request (claim) for invalidation of the right of protection.

Article 161
1. To the extent as follows from an international agreement, where a trademark has been applied for protection by and on behalf of, or the right of protection has been granted for, an agent or a representative of the person enjoying the exclusive right to use that trademark in another country, that person may, if the agent or representative acted without that person’s consent, demand that the protection granting proceeding be discontinued or the right of protection revoked. He may also demand that the right of protection be granted on his behalf, or the right already granted transferred to him.
2. The right may not be demanded to be revoked or transferred, where the entitled person referred to in paragraph (1) has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of the registered trademark while being aware of such use.

It was obvious for the Court that if the conditions mentioned in the Article 161(2) of the IPL were met, then there is no need to study the substantive grounds for invalidation of the registration, as referred to in Article 8(1) in connection with Article 29 of the TMA. It is in accordance with Article 161(2) of the IPL that the request for the invalidation or transfer of rights cannot occur if, for a period of five consecutive years, the holder referred to in paragraph 1, being aware of such use, did not object to the use of a registered trade mark.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 574/10

August 23rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 574/10 ruled that Article 8 of the Paris Convention is a “conflicting norm” i.e. a norm/rule in private international law that points to appropriate substantive law that should be applied in a given case. The “trade name” on the basis of Article. 8, 9, 10 bis of the Paris Convention covers both the company name as an indication of business and company name in the subjective meaning. A trade name is the name of an entity being endowed with a right (merchant, trader, businessman – the subject of rights ), under which it is established and is performing its business activity, usually organized as the company/enterprise (the object of rights). It is therefore a designation of a business, which includes distinctive elements, and all these elements that allow for the individualization of economic activity.

R-194401

The disclosure of company’s name in the registry (National Court Register – Polish public register maintained by the selected regional courts and the Ministry of Justice which includes the register of enterprises) has a declaratory nature and provides the legal basis for the possibility of setting up/starting a business, therefore the priority of use decides on the priority of right to the company name.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 608/09

July 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 March 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1888/08 ruled that the consequence of the transfer of trademark rights to another party is that its previous owner is not allowed to continue to invoke the claims of the infringement of these trade marks. However, such a possibility is not excluded if the assignment of the trade mark rights will include appropriate provisions authorizing the previous owner of the trade mark to continue proceedings in which it claimed it has rights to assigned trade marks.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 May 2010 case file II GSK 608/09 held that at both the opposition proceedings as referred to in article 246 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, that served as the basis for the decision to refuse to grant a right of protection, and subsequent proceedings before the Polish Patent Office under litigation for invalidation of a right of protection, due to the recognition by the proprietor of a trade mark that the opposition is to be unfounded, the applicant who wants to support the opposition does not have to show the legal interest.

R-149940

Article 246
1. Within six months from the publication in “Wiadomości Urzędu Patentowego” of the mention of the grant of a title of protection, any person may give reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration.

2. The opposition referred to in paragraph (1) may be filed on the same grounds, on which a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration may be invalidated.

This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of CARLO BOSSI R-149940 trade mark owned by KIVI Dr Krzysztof Słoń from Izabelin Laski.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 425/09

May 7th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 30 August 2004, the Polish Patent Office registered word-figurative trade mark Ravago R-154724 to Walter Breitengraser. The Polish company RESINEX Sp. z.o.o. submitted a request for invalidation of the right of protection, arguing that Mr Breitengraser has applied for the registration in violation of RESINEX personal and economic rights arising from the rights to the name Ravago and in violation of good customs. Resinex also claimed that the application for the disputed trade mark was made in bad faith because Walter Breitengraser was the president of the company acting as an agent for RESINEX.

R-154724

The Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for Ravago R-154724 trade mark. The PPO followed the rule that in the event of a conflict between the right of protection for a trademark and personal right/interest, including the right to business/company name, the priority is to protect the personal interest. The PPO also pointed out that article 8 of the Paris Convention does not constitute independent grounds for the protection of trade names, and therefore a request for its protection must be dealt with under the provisions of national law. The PPO also noted that it is established rule in the legal doctrine and case law, that the registration of a trade mark, which is identical to a name of other company, that was used by this company prior the registration of a questioned trade mark, affects the personal interests of this company.

The complaint filed by Walter Breitengraser was rejected by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a judgment of 4 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1324/08.

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 23 February 2010, case file II GSK 425/09 rejected the cassation complaint and held that the presumption of good faith, as defined in article 7 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with later amendments, is the presumption, to which the provisions of article 234 of the Civil Proceedings Code – CPC (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 43, item 296, with later amendments, refers to. Under this provision, the presumption laid down by the law (legal presumption) binds the court and may be rebutted, however, whenever the law does not preclude this.

Article 7
If the Act makes the legal consequences dependent of good or bad faith, the existence of good faith is presumed.

This provision has the auxiliary use in all administrative and court-administrative proceedings. There is no rule of law that would exclude the possibility of presentation of the proof of the existence of bad faith.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 387/09

March 30th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Tianjin Cosmetics Scientific – Technical Research Institute Co., Ltd from China filed a request for invalidation of PULANNA R-76294 and PULANNA R-76424 trade marks. The company from China claimed that the person who applied for the protection of these two trade mark was acting as a Polish agent of Tianjin Cosmetics Scientific and he has concealed the fact of both trade mark applications and subsequent registrations.

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 17 February 2010, case file II GSK 387/09 ruled that to the extent as follows from an international agreement, where a trademark has been applied for protection by and on behalf of, or the right of protection has been granted for, an agent or a representative of the person enjoying the exclusive right to use that trademark in another country, that person may, if the agent or representative acted without that person’s consent, demand that the protection granting proceeding be discontinued or the right of protection revoked. He may also demand that the right of protection be granted on his behalf, or the right already granted transferred to him.

The right may not be demanded to be revoked or transferred, where the entitled person has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of the registered trademark while being aware of such use.

See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 950/08“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1111/08

January 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 July 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 237/08, dismissed Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation’s appeals against the Polish Patent Office (PPO) decision of 19 March 2007, case files Sp. 68/04 and Sp. 69/04, regarding the invalidation of the right of protection for word-figurative trade marks: TIFFANY R-128063 and “Tiffany & Broadway Inc.” R-128064 which were registered in class 25 for shoes. The New York’s company argued inter alia that use of TIFFANY trade mark for goods such as footwear is a parasitic activity that uses another’s trade mark reputation and is bringing undue financial benefit to the holder of national registrations. The Company also stressed the fact that its trade mark is subject to protection under article 8 of the Paris Convention.

The VAC ruled that the application for the protection of the TIFFANY mark for goods in class 25 was contrary to the principles of social coexistence because it caused the risk of weakening the reputation of the trade mark. Given the fact that the shoes are cheap and readily available, there is a risk of dilution of the reputation of TIFFANY trade mark and it may lead to lose its attractiveness among the exclusive clientele of goods bearing this mark.

The SAC in a judgment of 8 July 2009, case file II GSK 1111/08 ruled that 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, do not explicitly provide for any special protection for unregistered reputed trade marks. However, the doctrine and the Polish case law have already accepted the concept, that such protection could be provided under article 8(1) of the TMA.

A trademark shall not be registrable if:
1) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;

In particular looking at the circumstance of “a trade mark conflicting with the principles of social coexistence”, from the subjective perspective – it was commented that, the “contradiction/variance with the principles of social coexistence” may concerning the conduct/behavior of the applicant. On the basis of such conclusions, the registration of a sign for the goods of another kind, if the registration was intended to use the reputation of another’s trade mark or it was a threat of such reputation, was excluded. A trade mark application that was filed contrary to the principles of social coexistence, was an application made in bad faith. The absolute grounds/obstacles that are provided against the registration of the mark as defined in article 8(1) of the TMA do not directly refer to the relationship between the sign that was applied for and any other competing trade mark, however, in accordance with the accepted interpretation of that provision, in case of the infringement of the rules of social coexistence, the obstacle could be the inappropriate behavior on the applicant (its actions done in bad faith). The assessment of applicant’s actions, who was motivated by the desire to use another’s trade mark reputation, should therefore be also varied according to circumstances of its motivation and, not only related to the trade mark itself.

The application for the right of protection for a trade mark that was made with the intent to use another trade mark’s reputation should be judged as an application that was made with the breach of the rules of social coexistence (application made in bad faith), regardless of whether it concerns a reputed registered trade mark or unregistered reputed trade mark.

The Polish case law, for instance the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 May 2008, case file II GSK 506/07, that was previously reported in the post entitled “Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07“, already established the rule that in a case of famous trade mark and its reputation, besides its recognition, it must be also characterized by the following characteristics:

market share/participation (both quantity and value of sold goods),
range and long-lasting of an advertisment of the product bearing a trade mark,
territorial and temporal range of use,
licences granted for trade mark use, quality of goods bearing a trade mark,
value of a given sign in assessment of an independent financial institution,
size and extent of expenditures spent on promotion of a mark,
the relationship on prices of substitute goods,
if (and to what extent) the mark is used by third party.

The SAC also noted that the Community case law provides several fundamental conditions for the recognition of a trade mark as a reputed one. These are:

knowledge of the trade mark by a significant group of customers,
the contribution of the trade mark in the market,
intensity and geographic scope of the use,
intensity matching of goods with the trade mark,
the size of expenditures on advertising and promotion of the trade mark.

The SAC cited inter alia the judgment of the Court of Justice of the UE of 14 September 1999 in case C-375/97, General Motors and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2004 in case T-8/03, El Corte Ingles and the CFI’s judgment of 25 May 2005 in case T-67/04, Spa Finders.

It is also clear that the reputation of a trade mark must be assessed and established in the country in which the protection is sought. If one would like to qualify a given trade mark as a reputed one in the Republic of Poland, then the argument of the international reputation of a trade mark is not sufficient. The basic circumstance for the recognition of the reputation of a sign in a specific country is to show by a person who is invoking this argument, the market share in terms of both quantity and value of goods sold.

The SAC held that provisions of the First Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 do not preclude the possibility of granting the protection to unregistered reputed trade marks under the national law. Just to keep it in order, it is worth adding, that 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, provides in article 132(2)(iii)

2) A right of protection for a trademark shall not be granted, if the trademark:
(iii) is identical or similar to a renown trademark registered or applied for registration with an earlier priority (provided that the latter is subsequently registered) on behalf of another party for any kind of goods, if it without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the applicant or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark. The above provision shall apply to well-known trademarks accordingly.

for the protection of registered trademarks to the extent of the wording of article 4(4)(a) of the Directive. The trade mark application that was made in bad faith shall be rejected based on the absolute ground for refusal of protection based on provisions of article 131(2)(i) of the IPL.

2. A right of protection shall not be granted for a sign, if:
(i) it has been applied for protection with the Patent Office in bad faith,

The SAC ruled that the provisions of article 4(4)(a) of the Directive cannot be interpreted as the maximum limitation for the protection of famous marks in the national law and it would be difficult to follow the arguments that the First Directive 89/104 is an example of the so-called “complete harmonization” citing the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 January 2003 in case C-292/00, Davidoff & Cie S. A.

According to the SAC, the court of first instance (VAC) wrongly assumed the bad faith of the applicant and it did not consider the fact that the applicant has conducted its business in Poland since 1990 with the use of the mark, and after about five years of its activity, the company applied for the registration of the mark. These circumstances certainly were not indifferent to assess the intentions and purposes of the applicant so the VAC should address them in the grounds of the appeal.

When deciding on the interpretation of article 8(1) of the TMA, which allows for the protection of not registered reputed trade marks in Poland, it should be also noted, that such protection have a special character because it applies to unregistered marks, and it is an exception to the principle of protecting industrial property rights by the registration process. This requires preserving much care, so that without proper justification, would not depreciate the importance of registering trade mark and it would not reduced the registration to a purely formal procedure that has no importance.

Therefore, the SAC annulled both questioned judgments of the Voivodeship Administrative Court and returned to the VAC for reconsideration in accordance with the conclusions reached and ordered the Polish Patent Office to pay Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation 1200 PLN as reimbursement of costs of the cassation compliant.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 121/09

October 13th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 9 October 1996, the Polish Patent Office registered the trade mark XAVIER LAURENT R-92393 for goods in class 3 such as personal deodorants. The trade mark is currenty owned by the Polish company HOUSE Spółka z o.o. from Zielona Góra. The International Trade Corporation Limited, the owner of XL XAVIER LAURENT IR-763083 trade mark filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for XAVIER LAURENT R-92393 trade mark.

The ITC claimed it has been active in the cosmetics industry fo the long time and the most popular goods are these marked with the Xavier Laurent brand. The company had a national distributor of its products in Poland which on March 1994 applied to the Polish Patent Office for the trade mark registration of XAVIER LAURENT sign and later on it has assigned the right of protection for XAVIER LAURENT R-92393 to HOUSE.

The ITC based its request on article 8(1) and (2) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 1985, published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 1985 No 5, pos. 15, with later amendments.

A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
1) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence.
2) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties;

The request was also mentioning article 6septies of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The Polish Patent Office dismissed ICT’s request and the company filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. On 5 May 2009, the VAC in a judgment case file VI SA/Wa 121/09, ruled that article 8(i) of the TMA must be interpreted broadly and concerns not only the form of trade mark, but also other subjective elements. The basis for invalidation may be, therefore, not only the characteristics of a trade mark itself, but also the reprehensible conduct of the applicant/owner. For the correctness of such interpretation of provisions of article 8(i) speaks the provisions of article 31 of the TMA that expressly provides for the invalidation of the registration rights acquired as a result of bad faith behaviour.

The VAC also held that article 161 of the IPL specifies the entity protected by this provision as “a person entitled to the exclusive use of the mark in a foreign country.” The protection provided for in article 161 may be used by any entity (entrepreneur) from abroad, which will demonstrate that at least in one Member state a specific trade mark is its “property”, especially it has the right of exclusive use that came from the relevant decision of public authorities (patent organ) in that country. The VAC anulled the Polish Patent Office’s decision from 2008 and decided that the decision was not subject to execution. The Judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 950/08

August 12th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 2 September 1998, the Polish Patent Office has granted the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 for the Polish company “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA Jadwiga i Piotr Szlegiel Spólka Jawna from Gorzów Wielkopolski for goods in class 25. On 2005, Scotch & Soda B.V. from Netherlands filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 trade mark based on article 8(i) and 8(ii) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 1985, published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 1985 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;
ii) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties

The request was also based on provisions of article 6septies of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The S&S company argued that for over twenty years it exports clothing goods marked with the Scotch & Soda trade mark to many countries in the world through local distributors. One of them was a Polish businessman, who in 1994 became the sole importer and distributor of Scotch & Soda products in Poland. According to S&S his Polish partner has abused its trust by obtaining the trade mark protection for Scotch & Soda trade mark for himself and in this way blocking access to the Polish market for S&S. In 2002, the S&S company has signed with Piotr Szlegiel a document called “cession of rights from the registration of the mark.” However, at the date of the signature of this document, the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 already belonged to “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA. In addition the S&S company received a financial request from the Polish entrepreneur.

“SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA claimed that it was an equal partner, rather than the official importer and sole distributor of the S&S company’s goods and it was not bound by the agency or representative contracts. The legal predecessor of “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA had full autonomy inter alia, he was allowed to apply for the registration of the disputed mark on the territory of the Republic of Polish. This fact was known to S&S. Polish company has claimed that S&S failed to obtain the trade mark protection for SCOTCH & SODA sign based on the international registration under the Madrid Agreement and it did not take any action to change this situation. After the completion of courts’ proceedings the S&S company has offered “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA a royalty-free (free of charge) license to use the disputed trade mark for shoes throughout Europe in return for the transfer of the right of protection. These negotiations have not yielded results.

“SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA was astonished by the fact that the S&S company “challenged” the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 for the first time after it has received a cease and desist letter (a request for voluntary fulfilment of plaintiff’s demand is a prerequsite to file a complaint in a civil suit against trade mark infringer) on October 2003.

“SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA requested the Polish Patent Office to dismiss a request for invalidation of the right of protection for SCOTCH & SODA R-100588. The Polish company called the circumstances with regard to litigation that ended in a judgment issued by the Regional Court in Zielona Gora (case act signature V GC 522/03). the Regional Court dmissed a suit brought by S&S company based on article 161 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo wlasnosci przemyslowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2001 No 49, pos. 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, pos. 1117, with later amendments.

1. To the extent as follows from an international agreement, where a trademark has been applied for protection by and on behalf of, or the right of protection has been granted for, an agent or a representative of the person enjoying the exclusive right to use that trademark in another country, that person may, if the agent or representative acted without that person’s consent, demand that the protection granting proceeding be discontinued or the right of protection revoked. He may also demand that the right of protection be granted on his behalf, or the right already granted transferred to him.

2. The right may not be demanded to be revoked or transferred, where the entitled person referred to in paragraph (1) has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of the registered trademark while being aware of such use.

However, the PPO did not agree with “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA arguments and it has invalidated of the right of protection for SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 trade mark in its decision of 2007. In the PPO’s assessment the legal predecessor of “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA has been acting in bad faith while applied for the protection rights to the disputed sign. According to the Polish case-law and doctrinal opinions that were cited by the PPO, the applicant for trade mark registration is acting in bad faith when he/she knows or should know that such action violates third parties’ rights. Acting in bad faith is also one who is relying on a right or legal relationship and knows that this right or a legal relationship does not exist, or he or she does not know, but the lack of knowledge can not be regarded as the justified circumstances. The PPO has also noted that in the legal commentaries on Polish trade mark law two competing views on bad faith are taken into account. First, bad faith occurs when a person who owns a disputed trade mark registration had to know or should know that the legal conditions to acquire this right were not met. In such case, the owner is always acting in bad faith when a mark has been registered contrary to the applicable provisions of the law or expressly recognized principle of social coexistence (see: article 8(i) of the TMA). By contrast, in the case of trade mark registration that was made despite the existence of an earlier priority right, an owner of such righ can be entitled as acting in good faith only if he or she was deceived (and it can be justified) with regard the extent of protection resulting from the trade mark right with an earlier priority. If the registration has been aquired by a person for a purpose other than to use a trade mark (for example, to force financial concessions from other entrepreneurs, to obtain control over imports, to force reaching of a license agreement) in this case, bad faith is understood as a qualified form of a breach of social coexistence rules. Such opinion was issued by Ryszard Skubisz, Prawo znaków towarowych. Komentarz, Warszawa 1997 r., s. 224 (not available in English: Trade mark law. Commentary, Warsaw 1997, p. 224). However, in turn, dr Elzbieta Wojcieszko-Gluszko thinks that there is no reason to modify the general concept of good and bad faith for the needs of the IPL regulations. According to dr Wojcieszko-Gluszko a valuable guidance for the interpretation with regard to bad/good faith may be a reference to the legal definition of a filing made in bad faith that is provided in the Benelux Trademark Law.

The PPO also cited arguments provided in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 August 2002, case file II SA 3879/01 and interpretation included in the judgment of 17 July 2003, case file II SA 1165/02 that was issued on the basis of article 8(i) of the TMA and in which the Court concluded that the issue of an assessment of the contradiction of a trade mark application with rules of social coexistence does not refer to trade mark only and itself, but also takes into account the contradiction with the principles of actions made by an applicant and their intended effect. In courts’ opinion the extending interpretation of the rules of social coexistence is justified if one notices that this general clause/rule has displaced such clauses and rules as the principles of good manners, fair trading and good faith. The PPO has considered as totally unfounded all arguments that the consent for a trade mark registration belonging to a partner was justified due to a lack of prohibition in the relevant articles of association, or in other agreements concluded between the parties. The concept of an agent or a representative in this case should be interpreted according to the Polish law. Selling products on the Polish market by the involved people was in such a role. “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA brought a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, which, in a jugment of 29 May 2008, case file VI Sa/Wa 402/08 dismissed the complaint. “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA brought a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw. The cassation complaint was dismissed in judgment of 2 July 2009, case file II GSK 950/08.

The SAC emphasized the fact that for the assessment of compliance of a registration of a mark with the principles of social coexistence (as referred to in article 8(i) of the TMA) the most authoritative is the moment of filing an application for trade mark registration of in the Patent Office, which in this case took place in March 1995. It could not be left imperceptible by the Courts that even “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA claimed that the disputed mark was not its property at the date of filing for registration in the Patent Office (sic!). Moreover, the legal predecessor of “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA did not inform S&S about his registration neither got a permission for such action. If it were otherwise, what is clear, the S&S company would not file for the recognition on the territory of the Republic of Poland of the protection for its international trademark.

As a distributor of the goods of an entrepreneur located abroad who was not leading any commercial activities in its own name on the Polish territory, the legal predecessor of “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA probably knew, or in any circumstance must have known that the application in its own name for registration of a trademark belonging to a foreign business violates provisions of article 6 septies of the Paris Convention. But not only. “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA predecessor’s behavior violated the rules of social coexistence, within the meaning of article 8(1) of the TMA. His actions in fact were directed at the appropriation of trade mark property rights owned by the S&S company, without obtaining any consent, in order to achieve unjustified benefits. Such behavior clearly violates the principles of social coexistence as it was decided by the Polish Patent Office and the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1110/08

September 6th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its recent judgment of 24 July 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 238/08, dismissed Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation’s appeal against the Polish Patent Office (PPO) decision of 19 March 2007, cases files Sp. 68/04 and Sp. 69/04, regarding the invalidation of the right of protection for word-figurative trade marks: TIFFANY R-128063 and “Tiffany & Broadway Inc.” R-128064 which were registered in class 25 for shoes.

The invalidation proceedings were started by Tiffany & Co. from New York. The New York’s company alleged not only the similarity of signs but also a breach of its over-150-year reputation applied to jewellery products. During one of the hearings before the Polish Patent Office, Tiffany & Co. provided evidence of a witness as regards the reputation and universal knowledge of Tiffany & Co. brand. The witness stressed that, although in post-war Poland the Tiffany brand was not present on the Polish market, the press (women’s magazines and other publications) wrote about the Tiffany & Co. as the provider of luxurious jewellery. The court has affirmed the PPO’s findings that the TIFFANY trade mark has the reputation even if it was not registered in Poland. Judge Olga Żurawska-Matusiak decided that renowned signs or snobbish signs (sic!) do not need to be widely known to the public. It is a sufficient factor if they are known to the relevant public, to whom such signs are addressed, those are consumers who are interested in buying luxury goods. If there exists an international reputation of a sign – it also includes Poland.

Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 8 July 2009, case file II GSK 1110/08 ruled that the reputation of a trade mark is associated with its highly distinctive character. One could say that a reputed trade mark is the one that has a high ability to automatically trigger associations with the product for which it was registered. It is quite obvious that this ability will be weaker, adequately to the number of cases of using the same or similar trade mark as a designation of other goods that are originating from other entrepreneurs. With regard to the plea of weakening (the dilution) of the reputation of the Tiffany trade mark, i.e. weakening its individuality, based on the ability to cause the automatic association with the goods marked by this sign, such effects are also caused by unquestioned by the Court numerous registrations of identical or similar trade marks for other entrepreneurs for various other goods, as well as the use of this sign the name of very different businesses.

The SAC annulled the questioned judgment and remitted the case to the VAC for reconsideration in accordance with the conclusions reached and ordered the Polish Patent Office to pay Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation 1200 PLN as reimbursement of costs of the cassation compliant.

Unfair competition, case II CR 367/87

January 3rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The French company Interagra, seated in Paris, demanded the cease of use of the same name by an international enterprise established in Poznań by a Dutch citizen. The company was registered in 1983 in the Register of International Companies in Poznań by Barthold Asauerus van Doom, and operated on the whole Polish market. This company has also registered Interagra trade marks R-61166 and R-61280. However, long before these events, the company Interagra SA started its operation in France. Both companies operated in the field of agricultural products and food. The company Interagra from Poznań knew about the existence of the French one, because Interagra SA had established commercial links with Polish foreign trade centrals (entities that were allowed to cooperate with foreign businesses during the communism era in Poland).

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 June 1988 case file II CR 367/87 held that in case of marking/designating of the undertaking in a way which may mislead customers in relation to its identity, any act that infringes or violates the rules of fair competition exhausts the conditions set out in Article 2 of the Act of 1926 on combating unfair competition, which is also valid for the provision of the Article 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.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 247/06

August 11th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1705/05“. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 February 2007, case file II GSK 247/06, dismissed a cassation complaint brought by the K. Company. This judgment concerned TERRAVITA trade mark R-142204.

R-142204

The Court ruled that it cannot be assumed that in case of word-graphic signs, a word element of such sign has a decisive character because it is easy to remember and to communicate. While assessing the similarity of signs one has to take into the consideration a general impression which compared signs exert on the consumer. I’m still not so certain if this trade mark (trapezoid box/packaging for a bar of chocolate with characteristic rectangle “window” at the front which allows the consumer to see the texture of the chocolate) should be perceived as “trade dress” as it was discussed by the SCOTUS in its judgment in the case Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). Maybe it is a three-dimensional sign/trade mark (3D).