Archive for: Art. 123 IPL

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1269/11

July 18th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On August 2008, the Polish law firm BSO PRAWO & PODATKI – Bramorski Szermach Okorowska Kancelaria Prawna Spółka komandytowa from Wrocław applied to the Polish Patent Office for the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark BSO RECHT & STEUERN Z-344756, for legal services in Class 45. The PPO refused because of the similarity with the CTM BSO no. 001463017 registered with the earlier priority for services in class 41 such as education and providing of training relating to intellectual property, patent, trademark, design and legal matters and relating to research and development for others, and in Class 42 for services such as Intellectual property consultancy, patent, design and trademark agency, including legal consultancy, engineering services, research and development for third parties and computer programming and services in relation to computer hardware, all relating to intellectual property, patent, trademark, design and legal matters and relating to research and development for others. This CTM is owned by the Danish IP law firm BUDDE SCHOU A/S. The PPO stated that the phrase “Recht & Stenern” (English: tax and law) is devoid of any distinctive character, as an expression, which determines only the scope of activities. This expression is not noticeable in the sign, because it is written in very small letters at the bottom, so there is no significant impact on public perception. Undoubtedly for the PPO, the acronym BSO was predominant, and the fact that the applied trade mark consists of three words and the earlier sign only one – BSO, was not important in this situation for the assessment of similarity. The PPO concluded that the same assesment applies to the figurative element. BSO PRAWO & PODATKI filed a complaint against this decision.

Z-344756

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 October 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1269/11 dismissed it. The Court ruled that a stylized symbol of section sign (paragraph) is generally accepted as an indication of the persons and entities providing legal services. Such a figurative element, no matter in what color or in any styling, recognizable as a double S symbol, is perceived to be connected with the law. It was difficult to accept that such an element, in a graphic that indicates the applicant’s company, would distinguish it from other law firms or companies providing legal services. The difference in the territorial operation of both companies was irrelevant for the PPO and the Court, because the CTM covers the entire territory of the European Union, and both companies are located there, in different Member States. This judgment is final.

Categories: Art. 123 IPL | Art. 151 PBAC | company name or firm | distinctive character | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish Patent Office | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 601/10

December 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company Producent Okien i Drzwi z PVC “OKLAND” Joanna Wilk i Wojciech Wilk Spółka Jawna from Kostomłoty Pierwsze filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for a word-figurative trade mark Okland R-154904 owned by OKLAND Spółka z o.o. from Rokitki, in regard to the goods in Class 19, wooden windows. The company from Kostomłoty Pierwsze claimed it operates since 1 June 1997. Its business activities include the production of windows and doors of PVC in the four southern voivodeships. The company argued that the simultaneous use of the OKLAND sign in its company name and as a trade mark registered for a different entrepreneur may increase the risk of misleading the public, which includes in particular the risk of association between signs. The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection. Okland from Rokitki filed a complaint against this decision.

R-154904

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 31 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 601/10 held that the registration of a trade mark that is identical or similar to a company name of another entrepreneur does not determine, however the infringement of the rights to the company name (the firm). The exclusive rights to the company name are not absolute. The limits of these rights are set by the coverage (territorial and objective) of the actual activity of a given company. The collision between identical or similar signs i.e. a company name and a trademark, may occur only within these limits. The judgment is not yet final.

Categories: Art. 123 IPL | Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 164 IPL | Art. 23 CC | Art. 24 CC | Art. 255 IPL | Art. 256 IPL | Art. 315 IPL | Art. 43¹ CC | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | company name or firm | likelihood of confusion | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Civil Code | similarity of goods | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 335/09

March 24th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 4 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1529/08 dismissed the complaint brought by Fashion Group Sp. z o.o. against the decision of the Polish Patent Office (PPO) of 2008, case no. Sp. 504/06, on the discontuance of proceedings in case of the invalidation of the right of protection granted for OSKARY MODY R-178091 trade mark.

Fashion Group based its legal interest on provisions on the freedom of establishment and the existence of its exclusive right to OSKARY MODY R-180722 trade mark. Fashion Group also claimed that MEDIA SUKCES s.c., the owner of the questioned trade mark, published press information indicating alleged violation of its trade mark rights by Fashion Group, which involved a risk of legal proceedings.

The PPO and the VAC denied the existence of legal interest on Fashion Group side. The company filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 9 February 2010, case file II GSK 335/09, ruled that a competitor has a legal interest in seeking the invalidation of the same registered trade mark as his right of protection, if the owner of such an identical trade mark took any action based on demanding for the cease and desist of use, or negating the right of its competitor.

See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 774/08” and “Trade mark law, case II GSK 503/08“.

See also Berenika Depo’s article “Same procedure every year: locus standi as an effective barrier to trade mark revocation for non-use in Poland” published in Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2010 5(1):55-64; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpp186.

Categories: Art. 123 IPL | Art. 131(2)(i) IPL | Art. 142 IPL | case law | legal interest | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 155/09

November 30th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 5 September 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1061/08 dismissed the complaint against the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the refusal to grant the right of protection to MLEMIX MAZURSKI Z-275675 trade mark. Spółdzielnia Mleczarska MLEKPOL from Grajewo filed cassation complaint.

Z-275675

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 October 2009 case file II GSK 155/09 held that the statutory conditions to obtain a right of protection for trade mark set out in Article 132 of the IPL must be met on the date of a trade mark application, and not on the date of the issuance of the decision of the Polish Patent Office that ends the case.

Categories: Art. 123 IPL | Art. 132(1)(iii) IPL | Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 153 IPL | Art. 168 IPL | Art. 169(1)(i) IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.