Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL

Trade mark law, case Sp. 207/10

May 21st, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 27 May 2008, the Polish Patent Office registered the word-figurative trade mark FORTUNA WARZYWNA KAROTKA STANOWCZA Z TABASCO I KOLENDRĄ R-209338. This sign was applied for by the Polish company Agros Nova sp. z o.o. from Warsaw for goods in class 32 such as juices, nectars and vegetable beverages, multi-vegetable nectars and vegetable beverages with the addition of micro and/or macroelements and/or vitamins and/or substance supporting the metabolic processes and/or flavorings, spices and herbs, sports and energy drinks, products for production of beverages: extracts, essences and concentrates, seasonings, and syrups, instant drinks.

Mc Ilhenny Company filed a request for invalidation of Agros’ trade mark. Mc Ilhenny is the owner of the word trade mark TABASCO R-51500 registered with the earlier priority of 24 March 1973, in class 30 for pepper sauce.

The Adjudicative Board of the PPO in its decision of 11 May 2011 case no. Sp. 207/10 dismissed the request. The PPO ruled that there is no likelihood of confusion between both trade marks because Agros’ trade mark is a label with rich graphics, where the words “karotka” and “fortuna” are located in a central position, and the word “Tabasco” is placed below and it’s not a dominant element of the whole sign. It only appears at the bottom of the label, and is written in a small font. This decision is not final yet. A complaint can be brought to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 352/08

April 29th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Prywatne Biuro Podróży Sindbad Ryszard Wójcik from Opole, requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the word-figurative trade mark SINDBAD HOTELE R-172657 registered in Class 40 and 43 for services such as photographic film development and printing and accommodation and reservations, and owned by Przedsiębiorstwa Handlowo-Usługowego Sindbad s.c. Michał Ząbroń, Roman Mandyna from Kraków. Ryszard Wojcik is the holder of the word-figurative trade mark SINDBAD R-77988 registered with the earlier priority in Class 35 and 39 for services such as transporting of passengers and goods by car, organization of tourist trips, travel agencies and advertising agencies.

R-172657

The Adjudicative Board of the PPO in its decision of 18 April 2010 case no. Sp. 352/08 invalidated the right of protection. The PPO held that there exists similarity of the signs and services. As for services, the PPO said that accommodation and travel agency services are related. This decision is not final yet. A complaint can be brought to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1860/10

April 21st, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 20 December 2006, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark O’LEARY R-180416 applied for by Piotr Kasprzycki PPH Eveline Cosmetics from Lesznowola for goods in Class 03 such as skin, hair and body care products for children, women and men, mascaras, creams, lotions, shampoos, soaps, gels baths, creams and gels, cosmetics, perfumery, and cleansing tissues and goods in Class 05 such as medicinal cosmetics.

R-65340

French company L’OREAL Societe Anonyme filed a request for invalidation. L’Oreal owns the word trade mark L’OREAL R-42203 registered with the earlier priority of 5 May 1960 for goods in Class 03 such as perfumery and cosmetics, toilet soaps, lipsticks, products for oral care, hair coloring agents, shampoos. The Company also owns the word-figurative trade mark L’OREAL STUDIO LINE R-65340 registered with the priority of 24 November 1988 for goods in Class 03. The French company argued that its trade marks are well-known and reputed. It presented a survey of consumers in the years 2001-2003, which proved the knowledge of the brand and consumer trust in the products. L’OREAL was the brand that has won numerous awards. The company argued that some of the goods are identical other are similar and raised an argument that the trade mark application was made in bad faith. The company relied on the judgment of the French court, which forbade the company that was created by Piotr Kasprzycki in France, the violations of trade marks and company name of L’Oreal, by the use of the name O’LEARY. L’OREAL also claimed the company created by Mr Kasprzycki was fictitious becuase its capital was 1 euro.

R-151141

O’LEARY argued that its trade Mark Has Irish origins and the average consumer is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. O’LEARY admitted that L’Oreal is a strong and very distinguishable brand and the consumer who buys these cosmetics will not pay attention to the other cheaper products. O’LEARY noted that since the French court judgment has been appealed, so the case has not been finally decided. In its opinion, the proceedings in France is not relevant in the proceedings before the Polish Patent Office.

The Adjudicative Board of the PPO in its decision of 16 March 2010 case no. Sp. 251/08 invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark O’LEARY. The PPO ruled that O’LEARY is confusingly similar to L’OREAL. Piotr Kasprzycki PPH Eveline Cosmetics filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 April 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1860/10 agreed with the PPO and dismissed the case. The judgment is not final yet. The cassation complaint can be brought before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1850/10

March 28th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 18 January 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1850/10 noted the trade mark law of Western countries has developed the principle that in the event of a conflict between two signs all doubts should be decided in favor of the owner of a trade mark with the earlier priority. This principle is a simple consequence of the belief that the entrepreneur who choose a trade mark that will be used for marking the same type of goods and that is similar to the mark with an earlier priority, is acting at his or her own risk and all uncertainties should be decided against him/her.

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 VI SA/Wa 1104/10

March 17th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

DOMAIN MENADA Sp. z o.o. applied for the right of protection for the word trade mark “TCHERGA – ŻYJ KOLOROWO” for goods in Class 33 such as alcoholic beverages (except beers). The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection because it found similarity with the earlier trade mark TCHERGA IR-0829406 owned by Droujestvo S Ogranitchena Otgovornnost BELVEDERE Capital Management.

IR-0829406

DOMAIN MENADA pointed out that it is a controlled company and the Bulgarian entrepreneur is the controlling one, where both enterprises form a homogeneous capital group and remain inseparable commercial contacts and in the interest of both parties is that DOMAIN MENADA is granted the right of protection for a trademark in question and a letter of consent signed by the Bulgarian company was a proof of such an approach. DOMAIN MENADA argued that the same evidence was brought in case of the “TCHERGA CRAZY FOR COLOUR” trade mark R-196255, in which the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection.

The PPO noted that all relationships between entrepreneurs, can only be the basis for granting a license to use the trade mark. The provisions allowing for a letter of consent in relation to the trade mark rights remaining in force are not provided in Polish law. The Polish Industrial Property law introduced regulations on a letter of consent in a limited extent in the case of applying for the right of protection for a trade mark in respect of identical or similar goods, if the trade mark is identical or similar to a trade mark earlier registered in the Republic of Poland, whose registration has terminated. The right holder of the earlier right may give his/her consent for the later trade mark being granted a right of protection. The PPO noted that the TCHERGA CRAZY FOR COLOUR R-196255 was registered before the Supreme Administrative Court rendered a judgment case file II GSK 279/07. The SAC held that a letter of consent cannot be used as ground to register a trade mark since Poland did not implement Article 4(5) of the First Council Directive 89/104. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 279/07“. Domain Menada filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 January 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1104/10 dismissed it and ruled that capital or organizational or personal links between enterprises cannot justify and serve as the sole reason for granting the right of protection for a trademark.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2168/10

March 16th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Red Bull GmbH filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to the “red dragon” trade mark R-179732 registered for DODONI Roman Górzyński, Marek Górzyński, Marcin Górzyński sp.j for goods in Class 32 such as mineral waters and non-alcoholic beverages. Red Bull claimed that “red dragon” is similar to its RED BULL R-207549, RED BULL ENERGY DRINK IR-0715531 and the CTM RED. Red Bull based its opposition on the reputation of these trade marks. The PPO dismissed the opposition and ruled that the opposed trade marks, despite the identical word element “red”, are different at all levels of perception, i.e., aural, verbal and conceptual, so that they produce a completely different impression on the average customer. These signs also have other verbal elements and the word “red” is present in other trade marks registered for goods in Class 32. In view of significant differences between opposed trade marks that excluded the risk of confusion as to the origin of the goods, the PPO decided that the reputation of Red Bull’s trade marks enjoyed on the Polish market is not relevant for the assessment of the risk of consumers confusion. Red Bull filed a complaint to the administrative court.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 December 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2168/10 dismissed the complaint. The court agreed with the PPO that the consumer who does not speak English will perceive RED BULL and RED BULL ENERGY DRINK as fanciful trade marks, and “red dragon” composed in part with the fanciful word “red” and in part of the Polish word of some specific meaning (Dragoon – mounted infantry or as a tall, stout, vigorous, sprawling woman) will be perceived differently. The court held that since the opposed trade marks are not similar, therefore the registration of “red dragon” R-179732 will not bring unfair advantage to DODONI or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of Red Bull’s trademarks.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1122/10

February 11th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 25 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1122/10 ruled that a trade mark application and examination case cannot be decided based on general assumptions and in an automatic way, because it is always resolved with regard to its specific conditions and references. The Polish Patent Office is required to conduct proceedings in such a way as to increase the trust of citizens in the State bodies and public awareness and appreciation of the law. According to the mentioned above principles, the PPO is required to precisely explain the circumstances of the case, respond to all claims and allegations and to include both public interest and the interests of the party, in the decision rendered.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1936/10

February 4th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office dismissed the opposition against the registration of the trademark TARGA R-189862 owned by the Polish company VALVEX S.A.. The request was filed by Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG. The German company based the opposition proceedings on the CTM TARA no. 827659.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 January 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1936/10 ruled that the risk of misleading the public as to the origin of goods or/and the manufacturer must be examined globally, taking into account all elements relevant. These elements include in particular: the degree of recognition of the earlier trade mark on the market, an association that may occur between that trade mark and the opposed trademark of another entrepreneur, the degree of similarity between the signs and goods and services. The Court agreed with the PPO that the goods covered by both trade marks were similar and of the same kind. These goods were directed mainly to professionals in the field of sanitary installations, construction or architectural design. The VAC found that these consumers were specialists with an above-average degree of product awareness, who purchased the products at issue in specialized points of retail or wholesale. With regard to the remaining consumers (i.e., non-professionals), the Court pointed out that the goods at issue were not likely to be bought impulsively. The Court found that TARGA and TARA were both simple, and easy to read, pronounce and remember. These signs are composed of four or five letters, and the first three letters ‘TAR’ and the last letter ‘A’ are identical. The trademark TARGA contains an additional letter ‘G’. Both marks are short, so the letter ‘G’ will be easily noticed and heard by consumers. The court found that the additional letter ‘G’ would have an impact on the perception of the marks. Where the trademarks concerned are short, one different letter is in general sufficient to exclude similarity.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1650/10

January 24th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office received a request for the conversion of the CTM FOX Petroli S.p.a. application no. 002672533. This sign was applied for the good in Class 4 such as petroleum, industrial oils and greases, lubricants, fuel (including motor spirits). The PPO refused to grant the right of protection because it found similarity between the applied sign and the word trade mark FOX-OIL R-96049 and word-figurative trade mark FOX-OIL R-96843, both registered for goods in Classes 04, 19 and 39 and owned by FOX-OIL I. Olszewska, W. Okoniewski Spółka jawna from Gdańsk. The PPO ruled that the signs share the same word element, and in case of figurative elements, the word FOX has been particularly exposed. FOX Petroli S.p.a. filed a complaint against this decisions.

CTM 002672533

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 December 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1650/10 dismissed it. The Court ruled that the average consumer of a particular type of goods is perceived as a person who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.

R-96843

The Court confirmed also the consistent opinion that the level of the average consumer’s perception may vary depending on the type of goods or services. The VAC held that the goods belonging to the group of petroleum due to the development of technology (including automotive) are treated as everyday use goods.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1127/10

January 13th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

POSTI S.A. applied for the word-figurative trade mark “POSTI Fitea man HERBATKA WSPOMAGAJĄCA ODCHUDZANIE z owocem z czarnego bzu i anyżem doskonały smak świetny efekt” Z-334117 for foods in Classes 05 and 30. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection. The PPO ruled that there exist similarity between applied sign and the word-figurative trade mark “fittea” R-178995 owned by “BIOFLUID” Spółka Jawna from Górki Małe. POSTI filed a complaint against this decision.

Z-334117

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 November 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1127/10 anulled the decision. The Court ruled that the PPO examined only verbal elements of both signs. The VAC ruled that the main distinguishing element of marked goods or services is, in principle, the word, because the recipient usually remember the sign and the marked product (service) based on the verbal element/s.

R-178995

However, the principle of the dominant meaning of the word elements in the combined trade marks is fully applicable, particularly when figurative and 3D elements have less distinctive character, or are completely devoid of this ability. This judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1126/10

January 12th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

POSTI S.A. applied for the word-figurative trade mark “POSTI Fitea HERBATKA WSPOMAGAJĄCA ODCHUDZANIE Z ANANASEM I CZERWONYM GREJPFRUTEM” Z-334116 for foods in Classes 05 and 30. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection. The PPO ruled that there exist similarity between applied sign and the word-figurative trade mark “fittea” R-178995 owned by “BIOFLUID” Spółka Jawna from Górki Małe. POSTI filed a complaint against this decision.

Z-334116

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 November 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1126/10 annulled questioned decisions. The Court ruled that the internal characteristics of the trade mark, including descriptive elements (or lack of such) of the goods and services for which it is registered, the market share of trade mark in question, the intensity and temporal and geographical scope of the use, investments in promotion and advertising, the percentage of relevant recipients, who because of the trade mark are able to identify products or services as originating from a particular company, must be taken into account when establishing the existence (or nonexistence) of recognition of the trade mark with an earlier priority.

R-178995

The Court ruled that the PPO should determine the mentioned above conditions and the outcome will help to assess the risk of confusion as to the origin of the goods which may occur if the protection was granted for the sign in question. The judgment is not yet final.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1124/10

January 11th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company GRAAL S.A. from Wejherowo applied for the word-figurative trade mark ERAFISH Z-340740 for goods in Classes 29 and 31. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for goods in Class 29. The PPO found that the applied sign is similar to the CTM EvraFish no. 4948618 owned by Stek-Rol. GRAAL filed a complaint against this decision.

Z-340740

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 24 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1124/10 dismissed the case. The Court held the risk of confusion is based on wrong, inaccurate attribution of goods bearing a given trade mark to a right holder by an average consumer. The more distinctive trade mark with the earlier priority is, and the goods or services bearing the marks compared are more similar, the bigger risk of confusion exist. However, when the signs are identical, and the similarity between the goods exists, there is a significant possibility of confusion, or association of both signs, even for professionals. The relationship between a particular product or service and the sign marking it is formed in the minds of buyers.

The Court also noted that the likelihood of misleading consumers as to the origin of products bearing similar trade mark increases with the degree of similarity of the signs. Therefore, the buyer may assume that the owners of such similar signs are in organizational or legal relationship. The existence in the course of trade of a similar trade mark may suggest that the sign is merely a variation of an earlier registered trade mark and comes from the same entity. This was even more dangerous, since both signs are intended to mark the same goods. If the signs are so similar and there are the same goods/services selected, one cannot exclude the confusion among the consumers of those goods because consumers do not always analyze the structure of the mark before selecting the provider of goods or services. This judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1072/10

January 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

NSE Products, Inc., the owner of the CTM CHOLESTIN no. 000447318 requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for CHOLESTERIN R-189581 trade mark owned by MEDICOFARMA Spółka z o.o. NSE claimed that both trade marks are similar which may cause the risk of consumers’ confusion, especially taking into account the fact that the goods are also confusingly similar (dietary supplements). These goods are purchased without a prescription, and often in places other than pharmacies. The PPO invalidated the right of protection and MEDICOFARMA filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 November 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1072/10 held that the provision the Polish Act on Industrial Property Law that prohibits the grant of the right of protection for a trademark that is identical or similar to a trademark for which a right of protection was granted or which has been applied for protection with an earlier priority date (provided that the latter is subsequently granted a right of protection) on behalf of another party for identical or similar goods, if a risk of misleading the public exists, in particular by evoking associations with the earlier mark, is intended to protect business transactions/economic turnover against the confusion as to the origin of goods. The registration of trade marks, by which there would be created the right, the scope of which at least partially overlaps with the scope of the registration with an earlier priority was unacceptable for the Court. The judgment is not final yet.

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.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 258/07

December 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

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 VI SA/Wa 299/10

November 15th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 14 March 2007, the Polish Patent Office registered the word-figurative trade mark Oxford Wielka Historia Świata R-187352 for goods in Class 16 such as books and periodicals. The Polish company “Oxford Educational” sp. z o.o. from Słupsk was the applicant and the holder of the right of protection. The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (Oxford University Press) filed a request for invalidation. The OUP argued that it is obvious to everyone that Oxford is a place uniquely associated by the public around the world with the home of a famous university. Therefore, marking the goods with a signs associated with Oxford – the seat of the famous University of Oxford – may mislead the public as to the true geographical origin of products. The OUP also pointed out that, with priority from 24 April 1995, is entitled to the rights of protection to three trade marks sharing the same verbal element, OXFORD, R-103399, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS R-102351 and OXFORD ENGLISH R-102350.

R-187352

The Polish company argued that the trade mark at issue does not refer to a geographical name of Oxford town, but to holder’s company name, and therefore it is not misleading. Oxford Educational also argued that the disputed sign was created in collaboration with an English company. The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection. The PPO ruled that the conflicting trade marks are registered for identical goods, therefore, there is a risk of misleading the public as to their origin. Oxford Educational filed a complaint against this decision.

R-102350

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 299/10 dismissed the complaint. The Court held that in case of a collision between a company name (the firm) and a trade mark that was registered with the “worse priority,” the priority shall be given to the right that was previously-formed. The mere registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to another company’s name (firm) does not provide even a breach of the rights to the company. However, the right to the company name would be infringed if the registration of a conflicting trade mark interferes with the exercise of this right. This distortion is misleading as to the identity of actors (acting under the company name and usign the sign) and therefore may jeopardize the company name. In case of a known, reputable, i.e. “strong” trade mark it means that the consumer awareness is associated with the recognized high-quality of products, derived from the manufacturer with high reputation. Thus, the registration of the questioned trade, and more – its application was made with a clear intention to benefit from the reputation of the OXFORD trade mark.

Trade mark law, case no. Sp. 133/08

November 10th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Wyborowa S.A. from Poznań filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark WYBORNA ŻYTNIA EXCELLENT RYE VODKA BLENDED R-172468 and word-figurative trade mark WYBORNA EXCELLENT VODKA R-172469, both applied for on 1 October 2002, for goods in Class 33 such as alcoholic beverages. The right of protection was granted to PPS Polmos S.A. Warszawa. Wyborowa S.A. argued that there is a confusing similarity to the WÓDKA WYBOROWA R-151215 trade mark and that the application of the both signs was made in bad faith.

R-151215

Wyborowa S.A. relied on an agreement regarding the division of trade marks that were registered for the stated owned Polmos company before socio-economic transformations that have occurred in Poland after 1989. Both WYBORNA R-64663 and WYBORNA WÓDKA R-64855 trade marks were transferred to PPS Polmos S.A. Warszawa.

R-64855

These trade marks received protection in the 90′s, and in 2003, Wyborowa S.A. requested the PPO to decide on the lapse of the right of protection. At the first stage, the PPO dismisses the case due to the lack of legitimate interests of Wyborowa S.A. The Company filed a complaint against this decision and the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 July 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 704/06 annulled the contested decisions and ruled them unenforceable. The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its final decisions of 28 April 2008 case number Sp. 285/06 and Sp. 543/06 decided on the lapse of the protection.

R-64663

PPS Polmos Warszawa applied again for the right of protection for very similar labels, hence Wyborowa S.A. filed a notice of opposition (dismissed by the PPO) and the request for invalidation,

R-172468

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 8 October 2010 case no. Sp. 133/08 invalidated both questioned trade marks. The PPO held that the application of those trade marks was made in bad faith, which was intended to circumvent the law. This was because these signs have been applied for during the proceedings of on the lapse of the above trade marks R-64663 and R-64855.

R-172469

The PPO ruled that Polmos Warszawa still wants to continue to maintain a monopoly and block other entrepreneurs to the use of the Wyborna sign. This is kind of a precedent decision, because the PPO probably for first time in its case-law considered that the re-application for similar signs is contrary to the principles of merchant’s honesty, as a matter of acting in bad faith. The decision is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 807/10

November 8th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 27 January 2007, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for GUCIO trade mark R-187648 for goods in Class 25 such as children’s shoes.

Guccio Gucci S.p.A. the owner of inter alia word-figurative trade marks GUCCI R-181633 and GUCCI R-184796 gave a notice of opposition to a final decision of the PPO on the grant of a right of protection to GUCIO trade mark. While proving the reputation of GUCCI trade mark, the Italian company stressed the fact that it owns many stores, where high-quality clothing and footwear is sold and it also includes shoes for children. The customers of these stores are known and influential people. The company argued that since the mid-twentieth century, the Gucci brand and products bearing this trade mark are associated with the highest quality and luxury – Gucci has become sort of “certificate of quality.” The Company pointed out that Gucci fashion house brings together leading, world fashion designers thus have a substantial impact on global fashion trends. Consequently, the goods that are marked with this symbol appear in numerous television programs, shows and magazines on fashion. GUCCI argued that similar trade marks in conjunction with the homogenity of goods for which these signs are clearly intended, may to lead to the risk of their association, and even confusion by customers, and this causes the possibility of customer confusion as to the origin of goods.

R-181633

Sławomir Piwowarczyk, the holder of GUCIO trade mark argued that the word GUCIO is a diminution of GUSTAW. The PPO dismissed the opposition. GUCCI filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 August 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 807/10 dismissed the complaint and held that dissimilar signs cannot lead to customers’ associations, so there can be no issue of imitation, and conscious deriving of benefits from someone else’s reputation. If the similarity between the signs does not occur there is no need to examine whether there was the use of another person’s reputation. The examination whether there are similarities between the trade marks is the “precondition” of establishing the argument/view that the use of reputation has been made. The second condition is to establish/examine that the trade mark has a reputation. The judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case no. Sp. 541/07

November 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 30 October 2002, Centrum Szybkiej Diagnostyki Kardiologicznej “KARDIOMED” Maciej Żabówka, Maciej Bylica from Tarnów applied for the word-figurative trade mark KARDIOMED for goods in Class 36 and in Class 44 such as rental of medical equipment, devices and medical apparatus. On 1 August 2004, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection R-180711.

R-180711

Another Polish entrepreneur, Centrum Kardiologiczne KARDIOMED Lucja Kieras-Deżakowska from Sosnowiec, filed a notice of opposition against the decision of the PPO on the grant of a a right of protection. The opposing party raised a number of arguments: the infringement of the rights to the company name, the misleading nature of the questioned sign, that the application for a trade mark was made in bad faith, confusing similarity. Lucja Kieras-Deżakowska argued that on 8 August 2001 she applied for the wor-figurative trade Mark Kardiomed for goods in Class 44 such as medical services for people in medical consulting rooms, counseling and medical care, m dical diagnostics, echocardiography, ultrasound, electrocardiography, stress tests, heart rate and pressure records, medical examination, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, paramedical services. The decision on the grant of the right of protection R-162886 was given on 6 May 2005. Ms Kieras-Deżakowska claimed the similarity of signs and services.

R-162886

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 13 September 2010 case no. Sp. 541/07 dismissed the opposition. The PPO ruled that the services are different. And although the signs do have similarities, it eliminates the risk of confusion. The PPO also noted that the civil court, should assess whether the proprietor has committed an act of unfair competition. As for other grounds of the Board found no evidence to support them. The decision may be appealed against to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.