Archive for: Art. 131(3) IPL

Tax law, case I SA/Po 210/11

September 26th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Poznań in its judgment of 28 Jue 2011 case file I SA/Po 210/11 held that a subsidiary company is allowed to depreciate trade marks that were transferred to it as an apportionment, starting from the first day of a month, after one month the Polish Patent Office has granted the right of protection for these signs.

Categories: Art. 120(1) IPL | Art. 131(1)(i) IPL | Art. 131(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 131(1)(iii) IPL | Art. 131(2)(i) IPL | Art. 131(2)(iii) IPL | Art. 131(3) IPL | Art. 131(4) IPL | Art. 132(1)(i) IPL | Art. 132(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 132(1)(iii) IPL | Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 132(2)(iii) IPL | Art. 132(3) IPL | Art. 132(4) IPL | Art. 145 PBAC | Art. 153 IPL | Art. 16(1) LEIT | Art. 6(1) IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Legal Persons Income Tax | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish institutions | trade mark depreciation | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 711/10

September 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 711/10 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.

Categories: Art. 131(1)(iii) IPL | Art. 131(3) IPL | Art. 143 IPL | Art. 144 IPL | Art. 145 IPL | Art. 4(5) Directive 89/104 | letter of consent | likelihood of confusion | similarity of signs | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 710/10

August 30th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 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.

Z-298140

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.

Categories: Art. 131(1)(iii) IPL | Art. 131(3) IPL | Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 143 IPL | Art. 144 IPL | Art. 145 IPL | Art. 245 IPL | Art. 4(5) Directive 89/104 | Directive 89/104/EEC | letter of consent | likelihood of confusion | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

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.

Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | acquired distinctiveness | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 131(1)(iii) IPL | Art. 131(3) IPL | Art. 29 TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | distinctive character | likelihood of confusion | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | secondary meaning | similarity of signs.