The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław in its judgment of 27 July 2010 case file I SA/Wr 592/10 held that the Directive 112 did not include the obligation to keep copies of invoices in the same form in which they were sent. Also § 21(2) of Regulation of the Minister of Finance on 25 May 2005 on the tax refund to certain taxpayers, the advance tax refund, invoicing, the storage of invoices and the list of goods and services, to which the exemptions from taxes on goods and services are not applicable (in Polish: Rozporządzenie Ministra Finansów z dnia 25 maja 2005 r. w sprawie zwrotu podatku niektórym podatnikom, zaliczkowego zwrotu podatku, wystawiania faktur, sposobu ich przechowywania oraz listy towarów i usług, do których nie mają zastosowania zwolnienia od podatku od towarów i usług), does not follow that restriction to the form in which to store invoice was associated with the way they have been sent to the customer or made available to. The Court also noted that the invoice should be issued in duplicate, but this does not mean that the invoice has to be kept identical in form, which is an invoice sent to the buyer. Invoice kept by the issuer and received by the buyer has to be identical in content and therefore the information contained on the invoice relates to the transaction.
Archive for: Voivodeship Administrative Court
Tax law, case I SA/Wr 592/10
August 31st, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiTrade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 710/10
August 30th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiOn 25 July 2005, DOMAIN MENADA Sp. z o.o. from Warsaw applied for the right of protection for FILIPETTI MONTENERO SPUMANTE DEMI SEC dalla tradizione italiana trade mark in class 33.
The Polish Patent Office informed DOMAIN MENADA that there exist earlier trade marks owned by Belvedere S.A. and refused to grant the right of protection for the applied sign. DOMAIN MENADA filed a complaint in which the company argued that it is a member of Belvedere Group and provided a proper letter of consent.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 710/10 held that in any case, the mere existence of links (relationships) between entities belonging to the same capital group cannot be regarded as a guarantee of quality of product bearing the disputed trademark. It should be noted that the capital group is a specific form of business, where corporate governance is exercised at several levels – both across the group and in individual companies. The mere membership in a capital group cannot be used as an argument that the signs from affiliated companies will not mislead consumers
Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 504/10
August 24th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 504/10 held that the scope of creative freedom is determined by the functional features of the object and the previous designs. In case of designs that must meet particular functional requirements, the scope of creative freedom is smaller than in the case of designs, which have more of the aesthetic features. Where the scope of creative freedom is broader, the differences between designs should be more noticeable than in the narrow scope of that freedom. The informed user must have information on the object, that is sufficient to assess the scope for creative freedom and be able to see even relatively small differences, that are important in the case of designs with little creative freedom.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Podstawka reklamowa Star base” (in English: advertising stand Star base) Rp-11748.
See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 574/10
August 23rd, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe 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.
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, therefore the priority of use decides on the priority of right to the company name.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 495/09
August 10th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiOn 14 March 1994, Polish entrepreneur operating under the name Usługi Pogrzebowe “Hades” Włodzimierz Wasilewski from Częstochowa applied for the right of protection for HADES Z-130892 trade mark in class 45, funeral services. Another Polish entrepreneur operating under the name Nowak Tomasz Firma Pogrzebowa HADES from Łódź filed an opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for HADES R-148641 trade mark.
Tomasz Nowak claimed that the Polish Patent Office ruled on the discontinuance of examination proceedings for HADES Z-130892 because of the failure to pay application fees and on 6 March 1999, he decided to file for the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark HADES Z-198798 in classes 26 31 39 42. On 26 September 2001 the PPO granted the right of protection for HADES R-132619 trade mark. Tomasz Nowak argued that the resumption of proceedings by the Patent Office on the application of HADES Z-130892 trade mark, which led to the granting of the right of protection, deprived him of part of the right acquired in good faith and the possibility to obtain the protection for the next sign. According to Tomasz Nowak the decision on the grant of the right of protection for HADES R-148641 trade mark, not only violates his right to earlier acquired trade mark, but most of all it violates the principle of certainty and security of legal transactions. It leads to a situation where the market will experience two identical trade marks, registered for identical goods, however, enjoyed by the various owners, which is contrary the rules of trade mark law of course.
The PPO dismissed the opposition and Tomasz Nowak filed a complaint against this decision of the PPO. He based its claims on provisions of article 8(1) and (2) 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.
Article 8
A trademark 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;
Tomasz Nowak also challenged the examination proceedings which led to the registration of the questioned trade mark.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 January 2009 case VI SA/Wa 1941/08 ruled that legal provisions invoked in the complaint cannot be applied to assess the legality of the registration proceedings conducted by the PPO. Accordingly, the request for invalidation of right of protection of HADES trade mark under these provisions was irrelevant. The provisions of the TMA, or the IPL does not provide in the course of the litigation proceedings lead by the PPO, the possibility to control the legality of the administrative proceedings that concerned the registration of the questioned trade mark. The Court ruled that the allegations of violation of the administrative procedure by the PPO could only qualify as a basis for annulment of the decision. Tomasz Nowak was required to bring such claims in the complaint, however he did not so. Tomasz Nowak filed a cassation complaint.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 June 2010 case file II GSK 495/09 dismissed the cassation complaint. The SAC ruled that the VAC could not review the decision on the grant of a right of protection for HADES R-148641 trade mark. The VAC had to decide within the scope of the complaint and shall be bound by the legal ground invoked by the requesting party. The SAC also expressed the view that the registration of the name of someone else’s company does not preclude the registration of a trademark but the right to a name of the company must be infringed, and the existence of such right has not been proven by Tomasz Nowak. The complainer has not demonstrated that he had the right to name of the company. Actually both entrepreneurs have the right to use HADES sign as their business name. The complainer also argued that the mere prior use of the sign and not in relation to the applicant, but in relation to the entitled to the right of protection, provides a sufficient argument that the questioned trade mark infringes personal or economic rights of third parties. The SAC ruled that this view is incorrect. It clearly refers only to infringement of personal or property rights.
Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 599/10
August 2nd, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 599/10 held that the factual justification of the decision of the Polish Patent Office should contain the facts that the PPO regards as proven, the evidence relied upon and the reasons for which other evidence has been treated as not authentic and without probative force. The legal justification should contain the legal authority for the decision with reference to the relevant law. Only justification prepared in accordance with these requirements allows for a full review of the contested decision. The Court upheld the contested decision and ruled it unenforceable because the PPO found that the design meets the requirement of individual character, but it did not explain which differences in shapings decide on their individual character. The position of PPO as to a small range of creative freedom was also not apparent from the justification.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Plafoniera sufitowa” (in English: Ceiling plafoniere/ceiling-mounted chandelier) Rp-12232.
This 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“.
Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 598/10
August 2nd, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 598/10 held that the court’s review of a decision issued by the PPO does not include a requirement to make additional findings for a case. The factual justification of the decision should contain the facts that the PPO regards as proven, the evidence relied upon and the reasons for which other evidence has been treated as not authentic and without probative force. The legal justification should contain the legal authority for the decision with reference to the relevant law. Only justification prepared in accordance with these requirements allows for a full review of the contested decision.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Ramię ozdobne do opraw oświetleniowych” (in English: Decorative Arm for luminaires) Rp-12224.
This 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 mar law, case VI SA/Wa 2180/09
July 31st, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 28 July 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2180/09 held that since the decision on the establishment who owns copyright to questioned trade mark, that should be issued by a civil court, was not taken because of the failure to act, the PPO correctly decided that the reasons for the stay of the invalidation proceedings indicated in the order no longer holds. This case concerned “panorama pogody” trade mark R-145414 owned by Eniro Polska Spółka z o.o. from Warsaw.
Tax law, case I SA/Op 177/10
July 31st, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Opole in its judgment of 23 June 2010 case file I SA/Op 177/10, pointed to the lack of precision in the national legislation. The court stated that § 21(2) of Regulation of the Minister of Finance on 25 May 2005 on the tax refund to certain taxpayers, the advance tax refund, invoicing, the storage of invoices and the list of goods and services, to which the exemptions from taxes on goods and services are not applicable (in Polish: Rozporządzenie Ministra Finansów z dnia 25 maja 2005 r. w sprawie zwrotu podatku niektórym podatnikom, zaliczkowego zwrotu podatku, wystawiania faktur, sposobu ich przechowywania oraz listy towarów i usług, do których nie mają zastosowania zwolnienia od podatku od towarów i usług), does not provide that the limitation as to the form in which to store invoice is associated with the way they have been sent to the customer or have been made available in a different way. The VAC ruled that a literaly reading of the provisions included in Polish Regulation does not lead to the interpretation that if the invoice is made in a particular paper form, a copy must also be kept in the same form thereof.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2178/09
July 30th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiPolish entrepreneur requested the Polish Patent Office for the invalidation of “panorama religii” trade mark R-145419, claiming the it owns copyright to the aforementioned sign. The PPO decided to stay the proceedings and ordered the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of the order to file a suit to the civil court with regard to establishement of copyrights to the disputed trade mark. The applicant was also ordered to provide the PPO with certified copies of the suit within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The applicant did not file such a suit and stated that he will not take those steps. After filing another motions this case went to the administrative court.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 28 July 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2178/09 held that whether there was an infringement of civil jurisdiction, in this regard, the matter will be subject to review by the Court on the complaint against the merits of the PPO’s decision.
Advertising of pharmaceuticals, case VI SA/ Wa 1136/10
July 29th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThis is the continuation of a story described in “Advertising of pharmaceuticals, case II GSK 461/09“. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment case file VI SA/ Wa 1136/10 canceled the decision of the Main Pharmaceutical Inspector (MPI) that ordered the Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning (in Polish: Federacja na rzecz Kobiet i Planowania Rodziny) to remove information about different contraceptions. Such information was published on the website operated by the PFWFP. Being bound by a legal interpretation issued by the Supreme Administrative Court, the VAC ruled that the mere use of the name of a pharmaceutical product does not prejudge that such message is advertising. One cannot automatically equate information on medicinal products with an incentive to use them.
See also “Polish regulations on pharmaceutical trade marks” and “Polish case law on advertising of pharmaceuticals“.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 808/10
July 28th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its order of 28 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 808/10 ruled that according to article 143 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 later amendments, the Polish Patent Office shall publish a trademark application immediately after the expiration of three months from the date of filing of that application. As from the date of publication any third parties may acquaint themselves with the trademark determined in the application and with the list of the goods for which the mark is intended. They may also submit to the PPO their observations as to the existence of grounds that may cause a right of protection to be denied. Therefore, anyone has the right to submit comments to a trade mark application, but filing such comments does not make someone a party to the examination proceedings. These observations are only material that will be taken into consideration when examining the trade mark application
The VAC also noted that according to article 246 of the IPL any person may give reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection within six months from the publication in “Wiadomości Urzędu Patentowego” of the mention of the grant of a title of protection, and according to article 164 of the IPL, the right of protection for a trademark may be invalidated in whole or in part at the request of any person having a legitimate interest therein, provided that that person is able to prove that the statutory requirements for the grant of that right have not been satisfied. In such cases, the person is a party to the proceedings. This case concerned Gobired trade mark R-222675 owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowo-Usługowe MAREL PLUS Leszek Marcinowski from Gdańsk.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 370/10
July 21st, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in its order 17 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 370/10 held that if the party did not act properly within a given period of time in court proceedings without its fault, the court may decide on the request, on the restoration of a deadline. The request for restoration shall be filed within the Court, in which the act was to be made within seven days from the time as the cause of transgression ceased. The request for restoration of a deadline to file a complaint must be filed through the court or authority. The restoration of a deadline has unique nature and can only occur if the party convincingly proves of the absence of its guilt. The lack of guilt means a situation in which circumstances that were impossible to overcome and that were independent from the party, have occurred , and these were the reasons that the deadline set by the law was exceeded (see the order of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 April 2008 case file I OZ 246/08).
In assessing the occurrence of this condition, the Court has to adopt an objective “test of care”, which may be required from everyone duly taking care of its interests. The restoration is therefore not admissible if the party is guilty of even slight negligence. If the party is represented by a professional representative, while assessing the guilt of not preserving a deadline, the representative acts should be considered, adopting an objective test of care, which may be required from a professional legal representative duly caring for the interests of its client, with the reservation that negligence of people, whom such representative employs, burden the representative itself, and therefore do not release the party from the guilt in non-reserving a deadline.
This means that the negligence made by administrative staff in activities necessary to preserve the procedural deadline, which was commissioned by a patent attorney who is a representative of a party, does not justify the restoration of a missed deadline.
Terravita Holding Establishment from Vaduz, Lichtenstein was a party who lost this case. See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 370/10“.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 503/10
July 20th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiIn January 2010, Polish company LMW sp z o.o. represented by a patent attorney filed via the Polish Patent Office (PPO) a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, against the decision of the PPO on the refusal to grant a right of protection for LIBERTY MOTORS trade mark Z-315048.
In the Court’s order of 8 April 2010, a representative of LMW was asked to remedy the formal deficiencies of a complaint by submitting a power of attorney/proxy to act on behalf of the applicant before the voivodeship administrative court or before administrative courts and the document setting out the power to represent the applicant, i.e. the original or a certified copy of the full entry from the National Court Register, within 7 days from the date of service of summons under pain of dismissal of the action. This summons were served on 16 April 2010. The deficiencies were not removed.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its order of 31 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 503/10 rejected LMW’s complaint. The Court held that according to provisions of article 58 § 1 pt 3 of the Act on the Law on proceedings before administrative courts – PBAC – (in Polish: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi) of 30 August 2002, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270 with later amendments, the administrative court shall reject the complaint, if it was not compensated for the formal deficiencies, within the prescribed period of time.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 369/10
July 19th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Polish Patent Office (PPO) refused to grant the right of protection for “100 panoramicznych” trade mark (100 panoramic) Z-241510 applied for goods in class 16 such as brochures, books, journals, magazines, titles of magazines. The PPO held that this trade mark lacks sufficient distinctive character and that the sign is purely descriptive and therefore can not be covered by the right of protection. Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o.o. being the applicant in this case, filed a complaint.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 369/10, held that secondary meaning is the result of a genuine and consistent use of a trade mark by the entrepreneur, in order to indicate in this way, the origin of the goods. The assessment of whether a sign has a secondary meaning must be decided by examining all the facts such as time of use, its market share, the ways and intensity of use, and all the data showing that a given group of customers will evidently assign the sign and the goods to a particular trader. The VAC repealed the PPO’s decision and ruled as unenforceable.