Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Polish Supreme Administrative Court

Trade mark law, case II GSK 206/06

April 25th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 16 July 1996, the Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the figurative trade mark DVORAK IR-639197. On 27 August 2003, the PPO upheld its decision and ruled that the sign in question is similar to two figurative trade marks R-79913 and R-80064 that were registered with an earlier priority for POLMOS S.A., and it violates the rights of third party, by using elements that are incorporated in earlier registered industrial designs Rp-1 and Rp-2 that are also owned by POLMOS.

IR-0639197

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 January 2007 case file II GSK 206/06 held that the registration of a trade mark whose description largely overlaps with the description of the industrial design that was previously registered to another company, without its permission, is a violation of the rights from the registration of industrial designs and meet the grounds for refusal of registration of the mark because it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 67/10

April 14th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark 1001 R-157046 registered for goods in Class 16 such as posters, albums, almanacs, stationery, blocks, drawing blocks, brochures, magazines, charade magazines, prints, forms, newspapers, calendars, calendars with loose pages, filing cards, cards, card-notices, postcards, comics, books, crossword puzzles, stationery, stickers, notepads, covers, bookmarks, drawing kits, notebooks, and owned by Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o.o. The PPO ruled that this trade mark lacks distinctiveness. TECHNOPOL filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 September 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1164/09. Technopol filed a cassation complaint.

R-157046

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 February 2011 case file II GSK 67/10 dismissed it and ruled that a trade mark which lacks primary distinctiveness will acquire distinctiveness or secondary meaning through advertising, if it is used for so long that it will be associated not with the original descriptive content, but the source of its origin – a specific goods produced by a particular manufacturer. The practice of different publishers who used different numbers and numerals in tiles of magazines did not allow for 1001 to acquire secondary meaning.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 259/10

April 7th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Mariusz Lech Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Uslugowe LECH-POL from Lask requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the word trade mark “lech wódka” R-145285 registered for Fabryka Wódek POLMOS ŁAŃCUT S.A. for goods in class 33 such as alcoholic beverages: vodka. Mariusz Lech argued that the questioned trade mark is confusingly similar to his word-figurative trade mark LECH-POL R-132854 and the word trade mark “mariusz lech” R-113305, both registered for good in class 33 such as alcoholic beverages.

The PPO dismissed the request and noted that Mr Lech’s trade mark were not genuinely used for all goods. In 2007 the PPO decided on the lapse of the protection rights for both trade marks in all goods except wines, this cases went through all instances. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 708/08“. Therefore, the compared goods are different due to existing specialization in the alcohol industry and the awareness of that specialization among potential customers is also important, because the average buyer is aware that the vodka manufacturer does not produce wine, and vice versa. These trade marks may exist on the market without collision. Mariusz Lech filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 October 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1050/09. LECH-POL decided to file a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 February 2011 case file II GSK 259/10 dismissed it. The SAC ruled that the conditions of production of wines and vodka are different. The packagings and sealing of such goods differs and there are different conditions of sale of such products. Vodka in not sold in the wineries, and in case when both types of goods are in a shop, (usually displayed on different shelves in malls), their location is clearly separable. The development of shopping centers and various self-service shops of retail chains, makes the criterion of sales conditions less important when it is used for assessing the similarity of the goods. The Court noted that vodka and wine, because of varying alcohol content, must be treated as different types of alcoholic beverages, which is also reflected in the provisions the Polish Act on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism of 26 October 1982 and the permits that are granted under this Act for trade and service of alcoholic beverages are issued separately for each kind of beverage from a separate pool of permissions. The Court also ruled that the incidental possibility that the producer of wines and spirits is the same entity does not lead to the conclusion that these beverages are of one type.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 91/10

April 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Biuro Miss Polonia Sp. z o.o. filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark “MISS POLONIA WORLD” R-152218 owned by MISS POLONIA A. Aldona Von Laübe from New Britain, USA. Biuro Miss Polonia argued that the registration infringes on its personal interests (the company name) and the Polish company operates on the marker since a long time as the organizer of the annual, national beauty pageant. The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right in question. Aldona Von Laübe filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 17 July 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 337/09. The American company filed a cassation complaint.

R-152218

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 February 2011 case file II GSK 91/10 dismissed it. The SAC ruled that there was no rational arguments that in case of existence of a trade mark similar to the company name, the infringement of personal interests and the rights to company name could take place only in cases when the entire trade mark consist of the company name. The marketing of goods bearing a trade mark that is a confusingly similar to the company name is also the threat to personal interests or property rights. The fact that the questioned trade mark in addition to the words “Miss” and “Polonia” (that were concurrent with the partial company name of the applicant) contained the word “World” did not deprive the applicant of the protection of the company name as a personal interests, because the designation “Miss Polonia” had sufficient distinctive characteristics that would allow for the identification of an applicant and help to distinguish it from other entities.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 56/10

March 25th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office registered the word trade mark TRIMEGAL R-177593 for Farmaceutyczna Spółdzielnia Pracy GALENA for goods in Class 5 such as pharmaceutical preparations. NOVARTIS AG filed a notice of opposition. The Swiss company claimed TRIMEGAL is similar to its trade mark TRILEPTAL IR-0560245 registered for goods in Class 5 such as pharmaceuticals. The PPO dismissed it. Novartis decided to file a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 August 2009 case file akt VI SA/Wa 581/09 dismissed it, and NOVARTIS filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 January 2011 case file II GSK 56/10 held that in the case of the final recipients of pharmaceuticlas that are labeled with TRIMEGAL or TRILEPTAL trade marks it is hard to tell about the existence of likelihood/risk of confusion. The Court noted that it should be remembered that these signs are used for the determination of drugs that are used for different illnesses such as heart disease and epilepsy. Patients who are suffering from such illnesses are deemed according to the SAC as the “aware consumers” of their prescription drugs. Moreover, the so-called “post-sale risk of confusion” can be considered only when the patient with epilepsy, also suffers from heart disease, because only then in his medicine cabinet at home can be found both drugs bearing this two marks in question. The differences between both marks are sufficient to exclude any risk of confusion and to ensure the existence of the two signs on the market without any collision. Therefore, the view that TRIMEGAL is similar to TRILEPTAL in a way that excludes the possibility of distinguishing this two signs, in fact, would limit the possibility to use other trademarks with the informational prefix TRI- (triple).

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1088/09

February 19th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polish company Śnieżka Invest sp. z o. o. from Świebodzice requested the Polish Patent Office to decided on the lapse of the right of protection for the trademark GOPLANA MICHAŁKI R-139668 owned by Jutrzenka S.A. Śnieżka claimed that the questioned trade was not genuinely used in the period of five successive years after a decision on the grant of a right of protection has been taken. Śnieżka also owns michałki R-72668 trade mark and the company from Świebodzice argued that the market existence of GOPLANA MICHAŁKI sign would interfere its business.

Jutrzenka argued that there existed very serious reasons of non-use – the pending administrative proceedings for invalidation of its trade mark. Jutrzenka claimed that the use of the mark in the course of those proceedings would be irrational and it would expose the company to any future claims of Śnieżka. The PPO in its decision of 1 July 2008 no. Sp. 398/07 held that GOPLANA MICHAŁKI trade mark has lapsed. Jutrzenka filed a complaint. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 June 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 81/09 dismissed it. Jutrzenka filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 December 2010 case file II GSK 1088/09 dismissed the complaint and ruled that the case for invalidation of the trade mark registration does not qualify as an important reason for non-use thereof. The serious reasons should be factual and/or legal obstacles. These may be external events of force majeure nature that are impossible to predict and prevent. All circumstances relating to ordinary business risks, which concerns the current operations of each business cannot be deemes as such obstacles. A legal obstacle,preventing the use of a trade mark may be, for example, an individual administrative act prohibiting the use of the mark.

Procedural law, case GSK 940/04

January 25th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 January 2005 case file GSK 940/04 held that the SAC shall apply the measures provided for in Article 135 the Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts – PBAC – (in Polish: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi of 30 August 2002), published in Journal Of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270 with subsequent amendments, in order to eliminate breaches of law in respect of actions or acts issued or undertaken in all proceedings that were conducted within the case to which the cassation complaint was filed if it is necessary to its final ending. The Court is obliged to go beyond the boundaries of a cassation complaint, but it does not mean, however, that the court is not bound by the limits of a case in which the action was brought. It cannot therefore adopt the measures provided for by the law and “interfere” in the new issue which has been or shall be the subject of proceedings before an administrative authority, and acts that should be issued in this kind proceeding.

This case concerned the request to decide on the lapse of the right deriving from registration of a trademark that was filed before the Polish Patent Office by P.H. “Jubiler” Spółka z o.o. from Poznań. The proceeding before the PPO proved that this case should be focused on other important issues, mainly, the validity of transfer of the registration of JUBILER R-60833 trade mark. The PPO dismissed the request. The company from Poznań filed a complaint against this decision that was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Poznań in its judgment of 16 March 2004 case file II SA 2550/02. P.H. “Jubiler” sp. z o.o. filed a cassation complaint.

R-60833

The SAC held that the boundaries of the administrative case are determined by the extent of judicial review of public administration, which is provided in Article 1 of the Polish Law on Administrative Courts – LAC – (in Polish Prawo o ustroju sądów administracyjnych) of 25 July 2002, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 153, item 1269 with subsequent amendments. Therefore, in this case that concerned the complaint filed on the issue of the lapse of the registration of trade mark, the Court could not examine and apply the measures provided for by law in another case, namely concerning the agreement on the transfer of the registration of the trade mark.

Industrial design law, case II GSK 932/09

January 10th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 October 2010 case file II GSK 932/09 held that an industrial design concerns the form of a product, i.e. external characteristics that are observable, and individual appearances of a product cannot be claimed only because the material which was used to achieve the final effect (that was claimed in the application of the industrial design) is different from the one initially used, or that the production method of the design has changed. Also, these external elements which are not sufficiently visible cannot decide on a different, individual character of the industrial design.

Rp-9192

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Zadaszenie drzwi” (in English: door canopy), Rp-9192. The judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 903/09

January 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 November 2010 case file II GSK 903/09 held that the whole evidence material that was gathered in the file on the grant of the right of protection for a trademark is an integral part of the evidence concerning the invalidation proceedings that was initiated as a result of a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 619/09

December 24th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 4 November 2010 case file II GSK 619/09 ruled that weak distinctive characteristics of trade marks at issue, obviously did not justify, the infringement of these rights. Nevertheless, the proprietor of the mark mark with weak distinctive characteristics, and this is due to the reduction in this sign to presence of informational elements, has to tolerate the existence of a competitive trade marks, containing similar elements that have informational nature. The limit of that tolerance is the similarity of opposing signs, if it could mislead the purchaser of the goods.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 258/07

December 13th, 2010, Marta Skrobot

Aveda Corporation from Minneapolis, filed an opposition to avea R-151914 trade mark owned by INTERSILESIA MCBRIDE POLSKA Sp. z o.o. from Strzelce Opolskie registered for goods in Class 03. Aveda Corporation argued that avea trade mark is similar to its earlier AVEDA R-131741 trade mark. The Polish Patent Office has dismissed the opposition arguing that although the cosmetics in class 03 are goods for everyday use, the consumers pay special attention before their purchase, they check the ingredients of these products and are often testing them. Moreover avea trade mark is a word-figurative mark so it is protected as a whole.

Aveda Corporation filed complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court, in its judgment of 23 February 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 2048/06 dismissed the case. The Court held, that there is no risk of misleading the potential consumers although the trade marks AVEA and AVEDA are intended for marking the same goods, namely cosmetic products in class 03. Moreover the Court has agreed with the PPO, that the overall impression that trade mark exerts on the potential consumer is the most important factor. Although both trademarks differ from each other only in one letter, the figurative element in avea trade mark has crucial meaning.

Aveda Corporation filed a cassation complaint against this decision. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 December 2007 case file II GSK 258/07 held, that the Voivodeship Court could have agreed with the Polish Patent Office that the fact that both trade marks consist of the same element “ave” does not have to mislead the potential consumer when the letter “d” in the middle of the trade mark AVEDA this influences different perception of the trade mark. Although it was argued that the overall impression of the word-figurative trade marks in which the dominant element is a word, depends generally on the number of letters and the structure of the word.

The Supreme Administrative Court held, that the average consumer perceives the trade mark as a whole and does not analyze its particular elements. Therefore small differences between the trade marks are not sufficient to exclude the risk of visual similarity, especially when the trademarks have the common structure. In this particular case, it was considered that without analyzing the details of AVEDA and avea trade marks, the average consumer would notice the differences between both trade marks.

In answer to request of the plaintiff to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, stating that currently in force, test of assessment of risk to mislead a consumer and associating of trade marks on the basis on the art. 4 paragraph 1 point b), art. 5 paragraph 1 point 5 of Directive still raise concerns and in consequence there are discrepancies in the judgments of courts and Polish Patent Office, based on the judgments of OHIM, the Supreme Court held, that question formulated in this way did not meet criteria of Article 187 § 1 of Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, according to which if, during cognisantion of the cassation appeal, there would appear a legal issue, that will raise doubts, the Supreme Administrative Court may postpone the proceedings and introduce this issue to the Composition of seven judges of this Court for deciding.

Regarding the following question of plaintiff to the Court of Justice of European Union i.e. whether increased level of attention of the average consumer can be admitted regarding the goods of common use, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the answer to this question was not of vital importance to this matter, because even lack of higher level of attention of the average purchaser of cosmetics did not affect the assessment that in the subject case, during the assessment of the opposite trade marks there was no risk of misleading the potential consumers.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 849/09

December 8th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2005 the Polish Patent Office registered “MASTER COOK JAPART” R-164044 trade mark for Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe “JAPART” Zakład Pracy Chronionej from Panki. Podravka Prehrambena Industrija form Koprivnica, Croatia, the owner of “PODRAVKA VEGETA” R-138057 trade mark gave reasoned notice of opposition to the final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection.

R-138057

The PPO in its decision of 13 June 2008 case file Sp. 523/06 ruled that “PODRAVKA VEGETA” is the reputed trade mark although Podravka Prehrambena also supplied very worthless evidence materials. However, the PPO agreed with the owner that its trade mark was introduced on the Polish market in 1994 which was properly supported by documents issued on 11 October 1994 by the company’s marketing department. From this date the reputation of the trade mark could have been created and the existence of reputation is established before the date of application for the trade mark. In case of “MASTER COOK JAPART” it was before 3 April 2002. Therefore, the PPO invalidated the right of protection. Japart filed a complaint.

R-164044

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 22 May 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2147/08 dismissed it. The VAC came to the conclusion that Japart used a specific, multi-element composition of a reputed mark. The Court held that the likelihood of obtaining unfair advantage from the reputed trade mark is the obstacle that justifies the refusal to grant an exclusive right to sign that is identical or similar to the earlier a famous mark. It was therefore sufficient to assume that the applicant could use investments and financial efforts, which have previously been made by the owner of earlier trade mark to build an attractive image of the mark and attract customers. Japart filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 October 2010 case file II GSK 849/09 agreed with the VAC and dismissed the case. See also “Unfair competition, case I ACa 1270/10“.

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.

Tax law, case II FSK 1140/09

November 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the request, which was submitted to the tax authorities on 8 July 2008, a Polish company (the Company) explained that it buys the rights to movies, which are intended for sale to TV stations. The contract that is signed with a foreign company from which Polish Company buys rights for movies concerns several titles, each of which is determined, by a unique unit price and a 3-year period in which the movie can be broadcast on a television. The start date for broadcasting begins with one month to twenty months from the date of signing the agreement and ends after 3 years. Records of the dates are assigned to the emission of the purchase agreement signed with the television station. The whole contract is payable in seven installments. Before the date of payment of each installment the Company issues a VAT invoice to the buyer. A foreign company from which these right are bough also issues to the Company the invoices, according to the payment schedule. Percentage payment schedule in the contract of purchase and sale are identical.

The Company inquired the tax authorities i) whether the rights should be treated as commodities, or as intangible and legal assets that are subject to depreciation over two years, ii) and at which time/moment the company creates the revenue that is subject to income tax of legal persons, iii) and in which time the company creates tax deductible.

According the Company those TV rights are bought for resale and should be deemed as goods/commodities and are not subject of depreciation under the terms of the Legal Persons’ Income Tax Act. While presenting the view on the creation of the income the Company stated that in this situation, transfer of property rights takes place not earlier than in the date of the exercise thereof by the purchaser. Revenue in the amount of license fee for each film is formed/created on the date of fulfillment of all contractual terms, i.e. delivery of materials and the beginning of the license period. The starting materials can be supplied before the date of license period, and after that date. The invoice installments issued by the Company are accounted in proportion to the prices on all movie titles that are subject to a given contract/agreement, and therefore the amount concerning movies which have not entered the license period, or starting materials have not been supplied, are deemed as received advances and are not taxable income. The deductible is the total price for the given movie, resulting from the purchase agreement signed with a foreign company and is created in the month of sale. The installment purchase invoices received by the Company are accounted in proportion to the prices on all movies being subject to a given contract/agreement, and therefore the amount concerning movies which have not entered a period of license, or starting materials have not been supplied, are not deductible costs for tax purposes.

The Minister of Finance in the individual interpretation issued of September 2008, held that the position of the Company on a legal assessment of the facts with respect to qualifications of tax on turnover of rights for movies was correct, but it also held that the position on the time/moment of creation of the revenue and recognition of income tax deductible cost was incorrect.

The Ministry of Finance ruled that, pursuant to the provisions of of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 90, item 631, by license agreement, the licensor grants the licensee the authorization (license) to use his right of intellectual property, and the licensee agrees to pay the license fee. The right to use the audiovisual work is the property right. If subject of business activity of the Company (licensee) is marketing (distribution) of such rights, in this case, those rights are the goods.

While referring to the issue of the time/moment of creation of the revenue, the Tax Office found that expenditure on the acquisition of rights to the use of audiovisual works are direct costs associated with the disposal of such property/economic rights. Therefore, the applicant’s position that the amount concerning titles of movies which have not entered the period of a license or for which the starting materials has not been provided, are not deductible for tax purposes, was found invalid. The Company filed a request to case the infringement of law by changing the interpretation of the time/moment of creation of the revenue (second question). In response to that request, the Minister of Finance said that there are no grounds to change it.

The company filed a complaint against this interpretation. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 1 April 2009 case file III SA/Wa 3472/08 agreed with the Ministry of Finance and dismissed it. The cassation complaint was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 2 November 2010 case file II FSK 1140/09.

Categories: copyright law | Polish law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | tax on copyright.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1133/10

October 25th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case II GSK 496/09“. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 August 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1133/10 anulled the PPO’s decision and ruled it unenforceable. The Court held that the Polish Patent Office, while assessing the similarity of the opposing signs, ignored in general the question of the impact of a trade mark on recipient/consumers/buyers of the goods bearing the sign, and therefore it did not considered in a comprehensive way the impact of the entire mark, focusing only on one of its verbal elements – PREMIUM word, without attempting to explain the “impact strength (distinguishing ability)” of PREMIUM word as an informational sign that is used to designate the exceptional quality of a product.

IR-802093

In the opinion of the courts, this issue is very important, because while examining the compared signs, the impact of the opposing character – its distinctive ability may not be indifferent, and a “weak” sign must often tolerate the coexistence of the close signs. See U. Promińska, Ustawa o znakach towarowych. Komentarz, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze PWN, Warszawa 1998, p. 42.