Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL

Trade mark law, case II GSK 2062/13

January 30th, 2015, Tomasz Rychlicki

Transformation and economic changes in Poland after 1990 left a lot of problems in the case of trademarks that belong to the state-owned enterprises. The case described below is one of many examples.

PPHU HERBAPOL spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the word-figurative trade mark Herbapol Wrocław R-179901 that was registered for Wrocławskie Zakłady Zielarskie HERBAPOL Spółka Akcyjna for goods in Classes 3, 5, 30, 31 and 32. PPHU HERBAPOL argued that the questioned registration was applied for in bad faith and this sign is similar or identical to registration owned by PPHU HERBAPOL such as the word trade mark HERBAPOL R-00312 or the word-figurative trade mark HERBAPOL R-00356. PPHU HERBAPOL stressed that the goods are identical, are intended for the same consumers, on the same territory. The Company argued that according to the provisions of the Polish Industrial Property Law and regulations governing the use of Herbapol collective trade marks, the right to use this sign should be entitled only to PPHU HERBAPOL, and all affiliated entities, which also include HERBAPOL S.A., and the registration of an individual trade mark identical or similar to a collective trade mark Herbapol may only be made for the benefit of the PPHU HERBAPOL. Therefore, HERBAPOL S.A. obtained the right of protection “illegally”. It was emphasized that the right for the protection of the collective trade mark does not grant exclusivity to use the sign to one entity, because it is reserved for the organization with the right to its use by the organization and all of its affiliated entities. HERBAPOL S.A. is both a shareholder of PPHU HERBAPOL and the entity authorized to use the collective trade mark. Therefore, HERBAPOL S.A. was fully aware that its trade mark application was made without the knowledge and consent of PPHU HERBAPOL, which infringed PPHU HERBAPOL’s right of protection for the collective trade marks.

HERBAPOL S.A. requested the PPO to dismiss the case. The Company presented a genealogy of the transformation of the state owned company that was originally the sole owner of the Herbapol trade mark, and argued that PPHU HERBAPOL derives its priority to Herbapol sign “secondarily”. In this context, and bearing in mind that PPHU HERBAPOL does use the sign and not produce any goods under the name Herbapol, PPHU HERBAPOL is not the legal successor of the state enterprise. Consequently, HERBAPOL S.A. argued that PPHU HERBAPOL lacks of legal interest in seeking the invalidation of the disputed right of protection, and PPHU HERBAPOL did not object to the use of questioned sign in five years.

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection. The PPO decided inter alia that compared signs are similar in all three aspects, and the goods are identical or similar. HERBAPOL S.A. filed a complaint against this decision and argued that currently, between all companies included in PPHU HERBAPOL, there are no capital ties, on the contrary, they are in the classic competitive relationship, therefore as of the 1993/1994 they all began to use geographical designation like Wrocław, Poznań or Lublin alongside the sign Herbapol. Since then, HERBAPOL S.A. incurred large spending on advertising of its products thus the recipients of its products were able to distinguish the mark from other manufacturers that used the sign Herbapol. For these reasons, the HERBAPOL S.A. believed that its designation obtained independent and individual market position. HERBAPOL S.A. also argued that it has acquried the right to use Herbapol sign before PPHU HERBAPOL, because since 1959, it has used the word Herbapol in the company name. The state owned company Zjednoczenie Przemysłu Zielarskiego “Herbapol” in Warsaw applied for the right of protection for Herbapol trade mark in 1974, however in 1982 the company was dissolved and in its place another entity was created. Therefore, the right of protection has expired in 1984. PPHU HERBAPOL was founded in 1989 and in the same year the Company requested the Polish Patent Office to change the owner of all Herbapol trade marks in the Register kept by the PPO. From the foregoing, HERBAPOL S.A. brought the conclusion that the right to Herbapol sign should not derived by PPHU HERBAPOL from the “material priority”, but its right has kind of secondary nature.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 June 2014 case file VI SA/Wa 101/13 dimissed the complaint and ruled that because this case involved a collective trade mark, the Court had to indicate the nature of this type of sign. The main conclusion is that the right to collective trade mark belongs to the organization, but the organization’s affiliated entities are entitled to use the sign. The VAC cited recent judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 June 2007 case file II GSK 83/07 in which the SAC held that a collective trade mark serves many entities, although the right of protection is granted for a specific organization. The right to a trade and the right to use it separated. This institution should be distinguished from the joint right of protection, which is related to an individual trade mark, where such sign is intended for concurrent use by several undertakings who have jointly applied for the protection. In other words, the right of protection for a collective trademark does not grant exclusive rights to the use the sign by a single entity, but it’s owned by one organization, and it can be used by many entities associated in this organization. However, only the organization may be awarded the right, sell it, waive this right or request a change in the Register. Therefore, HERBAPOL S.A. infringed on registrations owned by PPHU HERBAPOL. With regard to the argument that PPHU HERBAPOL was not genuinely using the Herbapol collective trade mark, the Court noted that the organization may independently use the collective trade mark, however, the use of such sign only by entities affiliated also fulfills the conditions of trade mark use.

HERBAPOL S.A. filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 January 2015 case file II GSK 2062/13 dismissed it.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2032/11

January 7th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 17 August 2009, EMPIK CAFE sp. z o.o. applied to the Polish Patent Office for the right of protection for the word trade mark Lody prawdziwie domowe Z-359478 for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 35 and 43. “Lody prawdziwie domowe” means real homemade ice cream. The PPO decided that the sign lacks distinctiveness because in terms of semantic, the combination of three words does not create the concept that would be distant from content directly read from the statement, and refused to grant the right of protection. This nominal phrase is a carrier of advertising message, referring to the characteristics of the goods and has no features that would suggest that it is more than a slogan, that is a trade mark. Monopolization of such a non-distinctive designation by one entrepreneur, which is the carrier of information and used in advertising, would violate the principle of freedom of economic activity and fair competition. EMPIK CAFE filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 23 April 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 2032/11 dismissed it. The Court held that the essential function of a trade mark, which follows from its very definition, is to distinguish the goods of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, and ruled that the advertising nature of a trade mark does not eliminate its recognition as a distinctive or nondistinctive sign. The Court repeated that rights of protection should not be granted for signs which are devoid of sufficient distinctive character, especially, signs which consist exclusively or mainly of elements which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, origin, quality, quantity, value, intended purpose, manufacturing process, composition, function or usefulness of the goods. Descriptive signs may be one of the components of a trade mark, such as a specific binding word or symbol indicating a characteristic of the goods. Both, the legal commentators and the case law of administrative courts say the descriptive trade mark is a sign that has the characteristics of actual, specific and direct descriptiveness. The actuality of signs is examined objectively and leads to determining whether from the point of view of current market conditions such indication is useful for the description of the goods, and as such, it should be available for all participants. The rule of specific descriptiveness indicates that a sign is excluded from the registration as a descriptive only if it points to the specific characteristics of the goods, for which the trade mark is intended. The direct description occurs when a descriptive mark provides information about the characteristics of the particular goods directly, clearly and unambiguously, so that it may be well to read directly, and not by the way of connotations. Then a trade mark is assessed as a whole, and not only through the prism of one element – a descriptive word, but other accompanying elements. After all, not every slogan has to be registered. Of course, there is no normative definition of distinctiveness. Distinctiveness of a slogan serving as a trade mark must be sufficient. This means that in the minds of consumers the sign will be able to identify the origin of the product or service with an entrepreneur. It is therefore only possible if such belief collapse in the minds of consumers that the goods or services are produced under the control of a given company, and with its consent. This is the only way such a slogan as a trade mark will be recognizable, yet can serve as a valuable business asset.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1806/11

August 3rd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish entrepreneur IT5.PL Anna Sasin applied to the Polish Patent Office for the right of protection for the word trade mark PsychoDietetyka Z-325335 for services in classes 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44. The PPO refused and decided that the combination of two words (English: Psycho and Dietetics) lacks distinctiveness and is descriptive for the applied services. The PPO ruled that the etymology of these two words is well known and easy to verify in publicly available dictionaries, or search engines. Psychodietetyka is the name of a program dealing with the causes of eating disorders and diseases associated with poor nutrition (including diabetes, obesity, anorexia, bulimia), that also indicates psychological factors in eating disorders, such as lack of motivation to fight obesity and overweight, emotional sphere, impaired perception of self, relationships with family, problems with identity formation. The PPO noted that if someone type the phrase psychodietetyka, many search results of that word appear in the web browser. IT5.PL filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 15 February 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 1806/11 dismissed it and noted that the combination of words lies in their simple fusion into one word, without giving them any unusual form of graphic or semantic, so that they could be deemed as distinctive for the marked goods. It did not matter that the applied sign was not present in a dictionary, because it is not a measure of distinctiveness of signs. The Court noted also that the Polish and European case-law presents both liberal and rigorous views on examination of descriptiveness of trade marks. However, the principle of individual assessment of each sign is consistent in the legal doctrine and jurisprudence. This judgment is final.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 72/11

February 29th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 25 May 2006, the Polish company AERECO Wentylacja Sp. z o.o. applied for the word-figurative trade mark HIGROSTEROWANIE Z-311192 for goods in Classes 07, 09, 11 and 35. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection, claiming that the applied sign does not have sufficient level of distinctive character. The PPO pointed out this trade mark is built from the core “sterowanie” (in English: controling/steering) and the prefix higro (English: hygro) which indicates a semantic link to the humidity. The sign that is created from these two elements, although not listed in dictionaries, is not a fanciful term and simply means “to regulate humidity”.

Z-311192

AERECO filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1117/10 dismissed it, and ruled that both in the legal commentaries and the case law of administrative courts, it is considered in particular, that the descriptive sign is one that has the characteristics of the topical, concrete and direct descriptiveness. The topicality of the signs should be assessed on the objective basis and consist of examining whether from the perspective of current market conditions, a sign is useful for description of the goods and if as such it should be accessible to all participants. The rule of concrete descriptiveness states that a sign which indicates the specific characteristics of the product for which the designation is intended may be exempted from the registration as descriptive one. The direct descriptiveness occurs when a descriptive sign informs directly, clearly and unambiguously about the characteristics of a particular goods, so that characteristics may be interpreted directly, and not by associations.

The Court shared the position of the PPO, that the the questioned sign simply means “controling humidity” and thus explicitly indicates the characteristics of the designated goods and can not be appropriated to describe the products or services of one company. The VAC did not find anything fanciful in the figurative element of the HIGROSTEROWANIE trade mark. ARECO filed a cassation complaint but it was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 29 February 2012 case file II GSK 72/11.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1346/10

December 13th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark BIO-ACTIVE R-169823, in part for goods in Class 3, i.e. body care cosmetics. The owner BIO-ACTIVE DYSTRYBUCJA Sp. z o.o. filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 19 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 109/10 upheld the questioned decision and ruled that a trade mark consisting exclusively of informational signs that are normally used to designate the type of goods or services, even if those signs are in a language other than Polish, is not registrable. The Court also noted that the disputed trade mark is the so-called “internationalism”, that is a sign, which is present in other languages in almost identical form. In different languages it has the same meaning, construction reading and tone. As a result of the granting of the right of protection to the trade mark in question, all cosmetics producers except the owner were deprived of the opportunity to introduce to the market of all products bearing the term containing given information, and consumers could not be adequately informed about the characteristics of these products.

BIO-ACTIVE DYSTRYBUCJA Sp. z o.o. filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 December 2011 case file II GSK 1346/10 dismissed it. The SAC ruled that widespread availability of descriptive signs and indications is in the public interest.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1291/11

November 23rd, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark LAW24.pl applied for the Polish law firm Komarnicka Korpalski Kancelaria Prawna sp.j for services in Class 35 such as advising on business and business management consultancy, in Class 36 such as financial consultancy and financial and accounting activity, and in Class 42 such as legal services.

Z-341137

The PPO pointed out that the sign was applied for broadly defined legal services, and it cannot be registered because it lacks sufficient distinctive character, therefore it cannot be the subject of exclusive rights as others would have been deprived of the possibility to use it. The PPO noted that the applied trade mark is a company name, but there are different regulations regarding company names and the names of individuals. The PPO ruled that the right to the company name is not absolute, effective in relation to all (erga omnes). The PPO stated that the case of each applied trade mark is always considered individually on its specific conditions, so the argument that there is plenty of registered trade marks that include the word “law”, and the PPO should also grant the right of protection in this case, was rejected The PPO did not agree with the argument that recent visits to the website could prove that the trade mark in question has acquired secondary meaning. According to the PPO, the applicant has not submitted any evidence documents to confirm it. Komarnicka Korpalski Kancelaria Prawna filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 31 August 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1291/11 dismissed it. The Court agreed with the PPO and held that Internet address identifies a legal or natural person, but this identification is not equivalent, that the services provided by such person are marked with the same deisgnation.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 396/11

November 8th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

EAST SEA POLAND Spółka z o.o. filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark BIEN DÔNG R-204010 registered for services in Classes 36, 39 and 43, and owned by AEROCENTER TRAVEL Trinh Huy Ha.

R-204010

EAST SEA claimed that this mark is descriptive, because in the translation from Vietnamese to Polish language, it is the name of the South China Sea – Biển Đông. This name is the official designation of the geographic area used in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and as such it should remain free to use on the market. The company argued that this trade mark may lead to consumers’ confusion, in particular those of Vietnamese nationality, as to the nature or characteristics of services provided by the owner, because the sign in its content relates to the maritime area, which is associated with maritime transport, and not to the services that it was registered for. EAST SEA argued that the Bien Dong designation may be misleading as to the place where services are provided, as the owner provides its services in Poland and not in Vietnam. It is worth mentioning that EAST SEA applied for three trade marks that include BIEN DONG words.

Z-290648

AEROCENTER TRAVEL argued that the Bien Dong is strictly abstract expression for the average Pole who doesn’t know what it means in Vietnamese. The Company disagreed, that this is false or fraudulently marked geographical origin of their services, since none of the customers going to the office in Warsaw would expect it to be in Vietnam at the South China Sea.

The Polish Patent Office dismissed the opposition and EAST SEA POLAND decided to file a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 May 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 396/11 dismissed it and held that the Polish Industrial Property Law – in principle – does not preclude the registration in Poland as a national trade mark, the word that is taken from the language of another country in which language this word is devoid of distinctive character or it is descriptive for the goods or services for which the registration was sought, unless recipients/consumers in the State in which registration is sought, would be able to read the meaning of this word.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 562/11

November 4th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word trade mark flex fuga Z-297616 applied for by MAPEI POLSKA Sp. z o.o. for goods in Class 1 such as adhesives based on plastics and resins, silicone mortars, for goods in Class 6 such as decorative moldings, profiles, metal profiles, and for goods in Class 19 such as decorative moldings, profiles, profiles not made of metal, masonry mortars, dry plaster, mortars for grouting and welding.

The PPO decided that this trade mark is devoid of sufficient distinctive character and it lacks any additional elements, such as verbal or graphic, which would allow potential purchasers to identify the goods with the source of the origin of goods. The PPO noted that a fuga is a weld/joint between adjacent wall elements and flex means flexible in English.

MAPEI filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 August 2009 case file VI SA/WA 1017/09. MAPEI decided to file a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 January 2011 case file II GSK 19/10 overturned the judgment of the VAC and held that the VAC relied on the erroneous assumption that the buyers (users) of goods bearing the trademark at issue are those who know English or use the Internet every day, which was not supported by any evidence. Besides, the trade mark flex fuga was applied for not only various types of mortars but also for various types of decorative moldings, profiles, sections of metal and non-metallic, and in relation to those goods it is difficult, to talk about “cut or bent” joint or weld.

The case went back to the Voivodeship Administrative Court. The VAC in its judgment of 9 May 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 562/11 held that the fact that the Polish Patent Office has granted the rights of protection for a number of trade marks containing the word “flex” or the word “flex” in combination with other words, should prompt the PPO to a broader examination of the merits of the MAPEI’s trade mark application. Thus, the PPO’s view that even if MAPEI relied on other decisions issued by the Polish Patent Office, it could not affect the assessment of the submitted application and its final examination, is not justified. The VAC noted that the PPO could change its position on the regularity of the grant of rights of protection, in which one element was the word “flex”, but it should justify such change in detail. The case law of the PPO may therefore be subject to change, if the authority demonstrates that there are reasonable grounds. However, any unfounded inconstancy of the opinion of the public body constitutes an infringement of the administrative procedure, because it may result in undermining citizens’ trust in state bodies and adversely affect the legal culture of citizens, and thereby cause a breach of the constitutional rule that all persons shall be equal before the law and all persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities.

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 VI SA/Wa 1090/10

January 20th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polish entrepreneur “MALWA” Tea Wojciech Fabisiak from Lubiszyn applied for the right of protection for FITO APTEKA Z-327704 trade mark for goods in Classes 05, 30, 35 and 39 such as medicinal tea, medicinal drinks, medicinal herbs, tinctures of herbs for medicinal purposes, extracts of herbs for medicinal purposes, herbal tea, medicinal herbs, dried herbs, herbal mixtures for medical purposes, tea, ice tea, fruit tea, instant tea, coffee, coffee substitute, coffee substitute vegetable preparations, retail services and/or wholesale to third parties in the field of herbs, packaging of herbs, tea packaging. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection. The PPO found that the sign in question contains two verbal elements “Fito” and “Apteka”. The word “fito” according to the Dictionary of Foreign Words PWN (published by PWN, in 1993) is a first element of compound words that are denoting plants, for plants (from Greek “phyton” – plant). The word “Apteka” (in English: pharmacy) indicates the type of store where drugs are sold or made, as well as herbs, some cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, herbal teas, coffee. The PPO ruled that the applied signs lacks distinctive character. MALWA filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 17 November 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1090/10 dismissed it. The VAC agreed with the PPO and held that the trade mark is devoid of distinctive character, where the words making up the sign in question have their specific meaning, both alone and in combination. The trade mark should provide information on the origin of goods from a particular manufacturer, and no information about the type of goods. The Court ruled that in case of word trade marks the criteria for granting a right of protection are much stricter than for word-figurative trade marks (combined signs) due to less room for maneuver for other businesses wanting to use a given word. The registration of a word trade mark, which lacks fanciful elements, but consist of a generic name, may unreasonably restrict the right of other entrepreneurs to describe their products.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1056/10

January 18th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

This case concerned the opposition proceedings against the decision on grant of the right of protection for NATURTEA R-191045 trade mark, owned by the Polish company ZAS-POL Sp. z o.o., and registered for goods in Class 30 such as tea, fruit teas, black, green, red, flavored tea. The opponent argued that NATURTEA is not sufficiently distinctive, because it is a descriptive term that indicates only the type of product – tea. The Polish Patent Office dismissed the case and ruled that such a trade mark, as a combination of two words is a fanciful sign and does not indicate characteristics of the marked goods. The opponent decided to file a complaint against this decision. According to ZAS-POL, the law firm that was the applicant in this case, had no legal interest (locus standi) in the invalidation of the right protection.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 30 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1056/10 annulled the questioned decision and set the case back for reconsideration. The Court ruled that the PPO completely ignored evidence submitted by the opponent as to the existence of the term “natural tea” in the market, and in fact, the PPO relied solely on the arguments provided by the trade mark owner. It was an example of violation of the principle that requires the public administration body to comprehensively collect and examine all evidential material.

The VAC reminded also that legal interest is not required to be proven only in case of oppositions filed according to Article 246 of the Polish Industry Property Law, where 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, but only within six months from the publication in “Wiadomości Urzędu Patentowego” (the official journal of the Polish Patent Office) of the mention of the grant of a title of protection, and justifying at the same time the existence of the circumstances causing the invalidation of such right. The Court noted that it is the only example of the so-called actio popularis – a legal remedy that was introduced to the Polish Industrial Property Law because of the importance of public interest. This action is available to any person with the capacity to be a party in the administrative proceedings, even if such person is not directly interested in the matter. This judgment is not final yet.

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 VI SA/Wa 501/10

October 25th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company EDIPRESSE POLSKA S.A. from Warsaw applied for the right of protection for word trade mark NEW Z-294152 for goods in Classes 16, 35 and 41. The Polish Patent Office refused to register this sign claiming that it does not have sufficient distinctive character that would allow to individualize the source of the goods. The PPO concluded that the sign is not distinctive, because it informs that the goods and services for which the registration is sought, are… new. EDIPRESSE filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 501/10 held that the common practice of the Polish Patent Office in registering trade marks containing descriptive elements was definitely too liberal, especially if it is considered that while examining the registrability, the future interest of other entrepreneurs in access to a given sign should be taken into account. According to the VAC there must be a significant reduction in the number of registered trademarks with the descriptive elements, geographical or generic names, as the result of understanding the proper function of a trade mark, because the primarily function of a trade mark is to indicate the origin of the goods from a particular undertaking. If, therefore, the applied sign may be perceived by the average consumer as information about the characteristics (properties) of goods or services, the origin from a particular geographic area, it cannot be a trademark due to lack of distinctive ability which is required for trade marks. The importance of the principle of freedom of access to certain descriptive signs must therefore lead to a significant reduction in the number of signs with descriptive elements that were registered as individual trade marks. The judgment is not final.

Unfair competition, case V CSK 192/09

September 28th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

AFLOFARM Fabryka Leków sp. z o.o. from Ksawerów sued two Polish companies for trade mark infringement and unfair competition delict/tort with regard to selling similar pharmaceutical products. This case went through all instances.

Z-307527

The Supreme Court in its judgement of 22 January 2010 case file V CSK 192/09 published in the electronic database LEX, under the no 564857, dismissed the complaint filed by Hasco Lek S.A. and Hasco Lek Dystrybucja. The Court held that the specificity of the market’s segment in which the magnesium preparations are sold, and which boils down to the fact that the same or very similar products gains the advantage of customers, through its specific name and advertising of such product and its packaging, requires greater care when introducing a new product of a very similar name and packaging, because it cannot mislead consumers, and it cannot take away consumers from another producer.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 607/09

August 31st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

TRODAT POLSKA Sp. z o.o. from Warsaw applied for the right of protection for Pieczątka 2 Z-294822, Pieczątka 3 Z-294821, and Pieczątka 4 Z-294823 trade marks in class 13. Pieczątka means “stamp” in English. The Polish Patent Office in letters dated 27 March 2007 informed the applicant that these signs are not capable of serving as trade marks due to lack of sufficient distinctive character and urged Trodat to submit comment on this issue. The applicant did not respond to the letters sent by the PPO, in particular, Trodat did not take any position on the reported lack of sufficient distinctive character.

Z-294821

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 July 2010 case file II GSK 607/09 held that the burden of proof rests on those who seek for legal consequences from a particular fact for itself (the applicant), it results from a series of obligations incumbent on the applicant, including the obligation to provide explanations, to take an active part in the proceedings and to submit precise requests. These obligations are provided in Articles 145(2) and 152 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, in connection with Regulation of the Prime Minister of 8 July 2002 on filing and processing of trademark applications, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 115, item 998 with subsequent amendments.

Article 145
1. Subject to paragraph (2), where the Patent Office finds that the statutory requirements for the grant of a right of protection for a trademark have not been satisfied, it shall make a decision on refusal to grant the right.
2. Before the decision referred to in paragraph (1) is made, the Patent Office shall fix a time limit, within which the applicant is invited to react on the collected evidences and documents which imply the existence of grounds that may cause the right of protection to be denied.
3. Where the statutory requirements are found not to have been satisfied in respect to only certain goods, a right of protection for the trademark in respect of these goods shall be first to be refused by the Patent Office. On the respective decision becoming final the Patent Office shall grant a right of protection for the trademark in respect of the goods, for which it can be granted.

Article 152
The Prime Minister shall, by way of regulation, determine the detailed requirements to be satisfied by a trademark application, the detailed rules and procedure to be applied in the course of examination of trademark applications including, in particular, the extent to which the relevant information may be disclosed to the public after the expiration of the period referred to in Article 143 and the manner in which it is made available, as well as the extent to which the Patent Office is authorised to make corrections in the list of goods and their classification. The requirements to be satisfied by trademark applications may not be determined in such a way as to encumber the applicant with excessive and unreasonable impediments.

The renunciation of the party – despite the invitation issued by the Polish Patent Office – to submit sufficient evidence, explanations, positions may not be of no importance in a situation where the party alleges that the PPO erred in its decision in this particular issue, as a result of breach of the obligation imposed on the PPO to clarify the circumstances of the case in accordance with Article 7 and 77 of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments.

Article 7
Public administration bodies shall uphold the rule of law during proceedings and shall take all necessary steps to clarify the facts of a case and to resolve it, having regard to the public interest and the legitimate interests of members of the public.

Article 77.
§ 1. The public administration body is required to comprehensively collect and examine all evidential material.
§ 2. At each stage of proceedings a body can amend, supplement or withdraw rulings made regarding the examination of evidence.
§ 3. An body conducting proceedings as a result of having been required to do so by the body having jurisdiction to settle the case (Article 52) may, on an ex officio basis or on application by one of the parties, hear new witnesses or experts on circumstances that form the objects of such proceedings.
§ 4. Universally accepted facts and facts known to the body ex officio do not require proof. Parties to proceedings should be informed of facts that are known to the body.

The SAC noted that the provisions of the IPL that provides the possibility to request the applicant by the PPO to submit comments or issue a statement, in fact, serve to define the limits of administrative case, such as defining what is to be examined by the PPO and to what extent this should occur. The PPO is required to make an invitation before taking a decision, therefore, before deciding on the matter. At this stage, it is possible to have the intervention of the parties, if, contrary to the intentions expressed in the request/application, the PPO, for example, does not cover by its activities of all elements of the case, or unreasonably restricts its borders.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 369/10

July 19th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office (PPO) refused to grant the right of protection for the trade mark “100 panoramicznych” Z-241510 (in English: 100 panoramic) applied for goods in class 16 such as brochures, books, journals, magazines, titles of magazines. The PPO held that this trade mark is not sufficiently distinctive 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 (acquired distinctiveness) 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 annulled the PPO’s decision and ruled as unenforceable.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 274/10

June 1st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 14 March 2005, the Polish company PMB S.A. from Białystok applied for “dębowa mocno wędzona” (oak heavily smoked) trade mark Z-292377, for goods in class 29 such as meats, smoked products and offal products.

The Polish Patent Office denied to grant a right of protection and PMB filed a complaint to the administrative court. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a judgment of 14 April 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 274/10, rejected the complaint. According to the Court, in this case, the PPO correctly held that PMB has not shown that the sign has acquired distinctiveness. As it was clear from case files, the only evidence provided by PMB was statements of sales of products marked with the questioned sign as of January 2005. The issue of acquisition of secondary meaning (acquired distinctiveness) is taken into account together with all the circumstances of the presence of a sign on the market, including such as: market share, the intensity, geographical extent, duration of the use of a trade mark, investments in advertising, the percentage of a relevant group of customers who recognize the sign as an indication of origin from a particular entrepreneur, etc. Such evidences must come prior to the date of filing of a trademark application with the Polish Patent Office. The Court commented on the Community case law in which the evidence of secondary meaning is also allowed from the period after the date of trade mark application, if they show that acquired distinctiveness already existed at that date.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 214/09

March 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is a continuation of the story described in a post entitled “Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1000/08“. Les Laboratoires Servier from France filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 16 December 2009, case file II GSK 214/09, ruled that the sign GLAZIDE is representing a creative transformation of the name of an active ingredient (AI) called gliclazidium (gliclazide) that was proposed by the WHO. GLAZIDE has the distinctive character because it is a fanciful sign and it does not constitute either a name of a generic product, or the International Nonproprietary Name of the active substance of the Latin Gliclazidum (English: Gliklazide, Polish: Gliklazyd), nor does it directly inform about the characteristics (properties) of goods. Therefore, the SAC rejected the complaint.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1655/08

August 27th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 7 February 2003, Browar Belgia Sp. z o.o. from Kielce applied to register the word trade mark GINGERS Z-260753 for goods such as beer, beer-based drinks, juices, syrups, essences for making beverages, soft drinks, preparations for the production and manufacture of beverages, extracts and extracts of hop in class 32.

In a letter dated 14 May 2004, the Polish Patent Office informed the applicant that there was an obstacle to granting the right of protection for GINGERS mark, since it is an informative sign which has insufficient distinctive character to enable it to distinguish the products of one undertaking from other companies, under normal market conditions.

In its letter of 14 June 2004 Browar Belgia argued that, contrary to the assertion of the PPO, the name “gingers” associated with the list of goods covered by the application is not a generic term and does not perform only an informative function. Browar Belgia noted that the word “gingers” has multiple meanings in English language and can be understood as, inter alia, the colour red/red-headed and also as verve, the zest or liveness, and the word “ginger” is just one of many translations into Polish. The name GINGERS should also be regarded as fanciful because it has the “s” letter placed at the end of a word, while the noun “GINGER” is singular. Moreover, it is unreasonable to say that all consumers of beer and soft drinks in Poland speak fluent English and will associate English word with its counterpart in the Polish language, ie ginger.

In a letter of 17 October 2005, the PPO expressed the view based on articles 129(1)(ii), article 129(2)(i) and (ii) and article 131(1)(iii) 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.

1. Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs which:
(ii) are devoid of sufficient distinctive character.

Article 129(2)(i) and (ii)
2. Subject to Article 130, the following shall be considered as being devoid of sufficient distinctive character:
(i) signs which are not capable of distinguishing, in trade, the goods for which they have been applied,
(ii) signs which consist exclusively or mainly of elements which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, origin, quality, quantity, value, intended purpose, manufacturing process, composition, function or usefulness of the goods,

Article 131(1)(iii)
1. Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs:
(iii) which, as for their nature, may mislead the public, in particular as to the nature, properties of the goods or, with regard to paragraph (3), as to the geographic origin thereof,

The PPO noted that the mark applied for cannot be granted a right of protection due to the fact that the sign is informative for the majority of goods in class 32 and as for extracts and extracts of hops; it is a sign that it may mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of these goods. In its decision of 28 February 2007, the Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word trade mark GINGERS. The PPO noted that granting the right of protection for GINGERS word trade mark in favor of one entrepreneur would limit freedom of business activity of other market participants in the process of producing and marketing of these goods and thus hamper the business activities of other entities.

In a letter dated 11 May 2007, Browar Belgia requested a retrial, calling for the reversal of the contested decision. According to Browar Belgia, granting the right of protection for GINGERS trade mark would not limit anyone from the possibility of providing, for example, the composition of beer on the label in place designated for that purpose, but this does not mean that the composition of beer, to be specific the content of the component, is a passport to putting GINGERS into other trade marks. It was an unacceptable situation in which another party would benefit from the reputation of the trade Gingers, that was promoted by a very expensive advertising campaign. In the meantime, Browar Belgia transferred the right to trade mark application GINGERS Z-260753 to Kompania Piwowarska S.A. from Poznań. In a decision of 30 May 2008, the PPO upheld in entirety its previous decision of 2007. Browar Belgia filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw and Kompania Piwowarska joined the case.

The VAC in its judgment of 17 February 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1655/08 dismissed the complaint and ruled that the principle of free access for all traders to signs that serve to communicate information about the nature of goods, their characteristics or properties does not allow for their monopolization by a single market participant.

Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1000/08

February 5th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the decision of 4 February 2005, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark Glazide in class 5 for goods such as anti-diabetic pharmaceutical preparations, for Farmaceutyczna Spółdzielnia Prac Galena from Wrocław.

Les Laboratoires Servier from France filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection based on articles 129(1)(ii) and 129(2)(ii) 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.

Article 129(1)(ii)
1. Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs which:
(ii) are devoid of sufficient distinctive character.

Article 129(2)(ii)
(ii) signs which consist exclusively or mainly of elements which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, origin, quality, quantity, value, intended purpose, manufacturing process, composition, function or usefulness of the goods.

The French company claimed that the mark Glazide could not distinguish the goods for which it was registered. The mark itself presents information about the treatment of diabetes. The active ingredient (AI) in these kinds of medicine is the substance called gliclazidium (gliclazide). However, the PPO dismissed the request and the French company filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 31 October 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1000/08 dismissed it. That court held that the disputed mark may lead its recipients (doctors, pharmacists) to make some association with the AI, but it does not mean that it lacks the distinctive character. The sign differs from the AI in phonetic and visual aspects. According to the Court, the Glazide trade mark is fanciful and does not describe a type of drug. The VAC ruled that article 129(2)(ii) clearly states that only signs that are made exclusively of the elements that describe the nature or origin of goods lack distinctive character.

The judgment is not yet final. The cassation complaint was filed before the Supreme Administrative Court. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 214/09“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 185/08

June 23rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Przedsiebiorstwo Przemyslu Spirytusowego Polmos in Warszawa objected to the trade mark application for SPIRYTUS REKTYFIKOWANY PL 1784, R-134685, filed by POLMOS LANCUT SA. Polmos in Warszawa claimed priority of an earlier trade mark – SPIRYTUS REKTYFIKOWANY, R-63628.

R-63628

SPIRYTUS REKTYFIKOWANY was bought by Polmos in Warsaw during an auction held by the Polish Ministry of the Treasury. All Polmos companies agreed in 1999 that they would not use trade marks owned by others in the Polmos “group”.

The Polish Patent Office (the PPO) decided that the contested mark had no distinctive character and it only indicated a specific kind of alcohol and method of production. Przedsiebiorstwo Przemyslu Spirytusowego Polmos in Warszawa lodged a complaint before the District Administrative Court in Warsaw seeking to annul the PPO’s decision. However, the Court sided with the PPO’s findings and rejected the complaint. The Court held that both signs were word-figurative marks and should be perceived and examined as whole.

R-134685

Polmos in Warszawa filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw. It supported its position with an argument that SPIRYTUS REKTYFIKOWANY acquired secondary meaning and had a good reputation bacause of the use during the course of trade. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 June 2008, case file II GSK 185/08 did not agree with such statements and rejected the complaint. The Court found that Polmos in Warszawa was seeking exclusive rights in the spirytus rektyfikowany sign, which was a purely informative term to be found in Polish dictionaries and official norms.

This case is the leading example of problems with trade mark portfolios of companies that were privatized in Poland after 1990. Polmos was state-owned monopoly, controlling the Polish market of spirits and other alcohols from middle ’20s until 1990, when it was divided and privatized into several independent companies.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 262/08

June 17th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 April 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 262/08, published in LEX under the no. 512901, held that the interests of all market participants must also taken into account when examining the registrability of a trade mark. The grant of the right of protection for a trade mark cannot lead for the monopolization by one entrepreneur of signs that are in the public domain. This case concerned the examination proceedings of the word trade mark polbar Z-278236 that was applied for by Akademia Rolnicza from Lublin. The word “polbar” is used as the name of the hens’ breed.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 227/07

September 15th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 April 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 227/07 interpreted the provisions of Article 129(2)(ii) 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.

2. Subject to Article 130, the following shall be considered as being devoid of sufficient distinctive character:
(ii) signs which consist exclusively or mainly of elements which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, origin, quality, quantity, value, intended purpose, manufacturing process, composition, function or usefulness of the goods.

The Court ruled that Article 129(2)(ii) of the IPL, refers to purely descriptive signs, i.e., characters that the direct and sole function is to provide information about the goods and not on its origin. The distinctiveness of the mark is the fact that the sole and direct information is information which indicates the characteristic of the goods. These signs that may constitute a determination of such characteristics only in a way of indirect conclusion, do not have the descriptive nature. The promotional message of the sign never itself makes it non distinctive, as well as the unoriginal slogan does not decide by itself about the lack of its distinctiveness. This case concerned the registration proceedings of word trade mark “ZAKUPY U NAS WEJDĄ CI W KREW” R-219731 (in English: Shopping with us you will come in the blood) owned by Polish company RAMPEX K. Termin T. Termin Spółka Jawna from Tychy.