Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

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

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1539/11

October 28th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

On January 2007, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark JAVART R-184566, applied for JAVART Spółka z o.o. form Warsaw, for goods in Class 1 services in Class 35 and 42.

R-184566

Oracle America, Inc., the owner of the trade marks JAVASCRIPT R-110075, JAVA COMPATIBILE R-112620, JAVA DEVELOPER CONFERENCE R-116591, 100% PURE JAVA R-125493, intended to designate goods such as computer software, electronic equipment and/or services related to these goods, filed an opposition. Oracle argued that opposed trade marks are similar and used to designate identical or similar goods and services, which may lead to consumer confusion. JAVART argued that the opposition should be dismissed. The PPO invalidated the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark JAVART R-184566 and decided that JAVA trade marks are known by a significant part of computer users, including developers around the world, also in Poland, and as such enjoy a worldwide reputation for software.

R-125493

JAVART filed a complaint against this decision, but the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 January 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 111/10 dismissed it. JAVART decided to file a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 November 2012 case file II GSK 1539/11 dismissed it. The Court held that the PPO correctly found that the applicant may gain unfair advantage through the use of the sign JAVART.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 730/12

September 17th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

On May 2008, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark COOL RIVER R-205208 in Class 3. This sign was applied for by the Polish company Firma Handlowa A & S PARFUME FACTORY Marek Asenkowicz from Katowice.

ZINO DAVIDOFF SA filed a notice of opposition to the decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection. DAVIDOFF argued that COOL RIVER is similar to its trade marks such as DAVIDOFF COOL WATER R-71968, COOL DIVE IR-0850699, Cool Water IR-0615313. All these signs are intended to indicate the same goods as the questioned trade mark. DAVIDOFF also claimed that its trade mark COOL WATER IR-0812386 is reputed one. Moreover, the trade mark COOL RIVER has been applied for in bad faith, because A & S PARFUME FACTORY knew about the existence of earlier marks owned by DAVIDOFF. The sale by A & S of perfumes in almost identical packagings, as packagings used by DAVIDOFF was the irrefutable evidence of the use of reputation of DAVIDOFF’s trade marks and the application of COOL RIVER in bad faith.

IR-0615313

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office dismissed the request in its decision of 7 March 2011 case Sp. 483/09. While considering the visual and aural similarity of trade marks Cool Water, Davidoff Cool Water and Davidoff Cool Water Wave in relation to the questioned trade mark COOL RIVER, the PPO noted that all the words used in these trade mark have the origin of the English language. However, regardless of whether they will be pronounced in accordance with the spellings of the Polish language or in English, they are different in the visual and aural aspects due to the different verbal elements – WATER and RIVER. Furthermore, the PPO ruled that the word COOL, being the same element in all signs, is a common and popular word associated with something cold. The word WATER differs from RIVER in the visual aspect, and their pronunciation is different. The PPO also found that there were no circumstances indicating that A & S applied for its trade mark in bad faith. The burden of proving bad faith was on DAVIDOFF. At the same time, the overall assessment of the circumstances surrounding the consciousness of A & S at the date of trade mark application will decide on its bad faith. In the opinion of the PPO, such circumstances did not occur. Evidence such as the flyer entitled “list of alternative scents”, similar perfume packagings used by A & S as well as printouts from the website showing COOL WATER and COOL RIVER perfumes, were not sufficent to prove bad faith. Davidoff filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 17 January 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 2051/11 dismissed it. The Court agreed with the PPO that the trade marks are not similar. The VAC also held that the understanding of bad faith should be based on the provisions of the Polish Industrial Property Law. Bad faith occurs if someone applies for the trade mark in order to block other application or in order to block the use of the sign by other entity who uses this trade mark in the market or to take over the company’s market position. Bad faith also exists when someone is filing for a trade mark for speculative purposes, and there was no intent to use the applied sign, and in order to get benefits from the entity that owns such trade mark. Bad faith trade mark application happens when the applicant without due care or being aware, applies for a sign in violation of the rights of another person, or when the applied trade mark is contrary to morality or fair trade practices.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 September 2013 case file II GSK 730/12 dismissed the cassation complaint filed by ZINO DAVIDOFF SA.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 484/12

July 14th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for word trade mark Orlen R-192731 owned by the company ORLEN Spółka z o.o. that was registered for goods in Class 9 and services in Class 42 with the priority of 2002. The request was filed by the big Polish oil company PKN ORLEN S.A. which argued that the questioned sign is similar to its reputed trade mark ORLEN R-125559 that was registered with the priority of 1999. Orlen sp. z o.o. claimed that its company had been registered and has been operating since 1992 under the name “Orlen”, and Orlen S.A. adopted and appropriated that name in 2000. Orlen S.A. called Orlen sp. z o.o. to discontinue use of that name due to getting the right of protection for the earlier trade mark ORLEN. After an exchange of correspondence between the parties, there was no consensus due to divergent expectations, in particular with regard to financial issues. Orlen S.A. proved that there were contacts and negotiations between the parties, subject to the cease of use of the mark ORLEN and argued that the trade mark application was mercantile in nature, becasue the applicant seek only commercial interest and wanted to sell this trade mark. Orlen S.A. submitted copies of correspondence between the parties and photocopies of sale offers. ORLEN Spółka z o.o. filed a complaint against this decision and pointed out that it has offered to sell the company as a whole rather than the trade mark itself.

R-167806

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 October 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1376/11 dismissed the complaint and ruled that an entrepreneur performing its business activities must be guided by the degree of care that is expected from more than the average person in order to predict the consequences of his or her actions and omissions. The content of the right to the company name within the meaning of the Polish Civil Code is not in fact an absolute and unrestricted right that allows to apply on its behalf for a trade mark that is convergent with this company name, regardless of the rights of third parties. Therefore, the person who uses a given sign and does not register it on his or her own behalf as a trade mark, acts at own risk. An entrepreneur who does not seek to acquire protection for its trade mark cannot rely on the earlier right to its company name, when the other party has obtained a right to a sign identical to the name of the business with an earlier priority and through significant investments earned its reputation. In such a situation, an identical trade mark application made by the entrepreneur who has the right to the company after many years from the commencement of his business, when the other party has made a substantial investment and broad actions leading to the reputation of its trade mark, should be regarded as taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier sign.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 26 June 2013 case file II GSK 484/12 dismissed the cassation complaint.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 566/09

December 6th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 11 January 2008, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark SEYDAK R-199882 for goods in Class 4 such as fuel, lubricants, engine and gear oils and hydraulic oils, and services in Class 39 such as parking services, and in Class 43 such as hotel services: motels and restaurants. This sign was applied for by the Polish entrepreneur Przedsiębiorstwo Usługowo Handlowe Marian Seydak.

R-115854

BP p.l.c. filed a request for the invalidation of the SEYDAK trade mark. The British company argued that the questioned sign uses a composition of colors (green and yellow) that are presented in the reputed trade marks owned by BP. The Company referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 3 September 2009 case C-498/07 and the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 February 2007 case file II GSK 247/06, judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 12 October 2010 case file II GSK 849/09, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of 23 October 2008 case file V CK 109/08. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 247/06“, “Trade mark law, case II GSK 849/09” and “Trade mark law, case V CSK 109/08“. BP claimed that it is not possible to assume that in the case of word-figurative trade mark, the verbal elements always dominate. The above cited judgments have changed this principle, and provided that sometimes colors or images are the dominant elements that may raise associations between compared trade marks. A patent attorney who was representing Marian Seydak, pointed to the discrepancy of the case-law, and stressed that the mere similarity of background is not significant enough when compared to the visual aspect of both signs. Marian Seydak argued that the trade mark at issue is different in terms of visual aspect, colors, and the layout of letters. He also provided that he is a local entrepreneur, who has just five gas stations distant from the main routes.

R-199882

The Adjudicative Board of the PPO in its decision of 12 November 2012 case no. Sp. 566/09 dismissed the request. The decision is not final yet. The complaint may be filed before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 484/10

November 9th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Nike International Ltd., filed a notice of opposition to the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for the figurative trade mark R-215109 that was registered for Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o. o. for goods in Class 25 such as shoes. Nike claimed similarity of its signs and the unfair use of reputation.

R-215109

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 26 October 2012 case no. Sp. 484/10 dismissed the opposition. The PPO did not find similarity between the opposed trade marks, and ruled that the disputed signs brings to mind an arrowhead. The decision is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case no. Sp. 30/11

October 23rd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 27 February 2009, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark PARADA R-215899 applied for the goods in Class 18 such as leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and goods in Class 25 such as clothing made of natural and synthetic materials, leather garments, footwear, headgear, by the Polish company HenMar sp. z o. o. from Dębica.

IR-650695

PRADA S.A. from Luxembourg filed a notice of opposition. The company argued that the trade mark PARADA is confusingly similar to its word-figurative trade mark PRADA IR-650695 registered in Poland with the earlier priority of 1995, for goods in Class 18 and Class 25.

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 12 October 2012 case no. Sp. 30/11 ruled that PARADA and PRADA are not similar. In the opinion of the PPO, although compared signs are composed of similar letters, however, the deciding factor was the conceptual aspect of both trade marks. In Polish, the word “parada” has a specific meaning and means, among others, spectacular show with the participation of many people (parade). The PPO decided that the semantic aspect proves that both signs will be perceived differently and there is no risk of misleading the public as to the origin of goods. Further allegations, based on the reputation of PRADA trade mark, have become, therefore, irrelevant. The decision is not final yet. The complaint may be filed before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 2324/11

October 5th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Julius Sämann Ltd., the owner of the figurative trade mark WUNDERBAUM IR-0579396, 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 Forest Fresh R-183901 owned by S&S Smiczek & Smiczek Hanna Smiczek. Both trade marks were registered for similar goods in Class 5, mainly air freshening products. Julius Sämann Ltd. claimed that because of the similarity of goods there is a risk of misleading the public, in particular by evoking associations with the earlier mark. The company provided also evidence on reputation of its trade mark.

iR-0579396

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection. The PPO decided that three required conditions had to be cumulatively met in this case: i) the reputation of the earlier mark, ii) the similarity or identity of signs, iii) if it without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the owner of the later trade mark or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark. The PPO noted that the case law distinguishes between absolute and relative methods of assessing reputation. The first one considers knowledge of the mark and takes into account primarily the percentage of a certain degree of its recognition on the market. The relative method emphasizes different criteria, including the degree of the recognition of the trade mark, the market share in terms of quantity and value of goods sold, the extent and duration of product advertisements marked by the sign, territorial and temporal scope of its use, licenses granted, quality of the goods, the value of the sign in the evaluation of independent financial institutions, the size of expenditures incurred in connection with the promotion of trade, as well as relationship price of substitute goods. The evidence material can be public opinion polls, prizes and awards, press releases, ratings, reports, invoices and other commercial documents, as well as various promotional materials. The Polish Patent Office has adopted a mixed methodology in this case, and ruled that both the evidence on reputation, that was claimed and established before the date of application of the contested trade mark, as well as documents from the later period, strengthen the recognition of reputation of the trade mark WUNDERBAUM IR-0579396. The PPO decided that both trade marks are similar in visual, aural and conceptual aspects. The PPO noted that the market presence and existence of a trade mark which consumers associate with reputation of another sign, harm the interest of the owner. S&S Smiczek & Smiczek Hanna Smiczek filed a complaint against this decision.

R-183901

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 2 June 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 334/11 dismissed it. The Court agreed with the the assessment of the PPO, and repeated that an entrepreneur, who for the goods of the same type, chooses a sign that is similar to a trade mark with earlier priority, given that there is an infinite number of signs to be selected, acts at its own risk. S&S Smiczek & Smiczek Hanna Smiczek brought a cassation comaplaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 July 2012 case file II GSK 2324/11 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. The Court held that the important drawback of the contested judgment and the decision of the PPO was the assumption on the similarity of the opposed trade marks that was based on the mere fact of the use in their visual aspect, a form of tree, without trying to examine whether the different presentation, including the type and shape of the tree, used in these signs, allowed for the adoption of the view that there exists the similarity of the signs. As a result, the Polish Patent Office, followed by the VAC, accepted the monopoly (exclusiveness) of the company to use very idea of the tree element in its trade mark. The SAC recommended that the VAC should also take a stand on the consequences of the fact that S&S Smiczek & Smiczek Hanna Smiczek used its trade mark for a considerable period of time from 2002. After almost 5 years, Julius Sämann Ltd. initiated a civil action against the S&A. The civil proceedings with regard to trade mark infringement ended before the Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 October 2009 case file V CSK 102/09. The Supreme Court dismissing a cassation appeal filed by Julius Sämann Ltd., based on the argument that long-standing and undisturbed use of the sign in question, in connection with the principle venire contra factum proprium, according to which, if the party continued at a specific practice, it can not rely on its illegality, if other entity accepted such practice in good faith and it could suffer injury as a result of the changes. The application of this rule would come into play especially in a situation, if after the reexamination of evidence, the similarity of opposed signs has been established, and there was not any proof of bad faith on S&S side. The argument that there was bad faith requires evidence and proof, because good faith is presumed. Whether, in connection with long-term use, the S&S trade mark has acquired distinctiveness under average conditions of the market, a feature which is required for any sign to be registered, could speak in favor of the principle of venire contra factum proprium. In addition, marking the goods produced by S&S with its own trade mark, which are the goods of the same kind as products of Julius Sämann Ltd., undoubtedly positively affected the overall demand for such goods on the marker. Therefore, the invalidation of S&S trade mark in situation of its use in good faith, could easily lead to the acquisition of the customers of S&S by Julius Sämann Ltd., without incurring the costs which were attended by S&S in the promotion of the sign, The Court found it difficult to accept. The SAC also held that it should be borne in mind that the right of protection for a trade mark, as every object in the closed list (numerus clasus) of property rights, is admittedly an absolute personal right effective against all (erga omnes), however, this right is not subject to absolute protection. In the light of the general principles for the exercise of property rights as defined in the Polish Civil Code, the boundaries of this right are defined in the Acts and the rules of social coexistence. The Polish Industrial Property Law also refers to these rules. For these reasons, the circumstances giving rise to the allegation of the infringement of the principle of venire contra factum proprium, are one of the limits to the exercise by the owner of its legitimate socio-economic use of the right of protection that derives from the registration of the trade mark. Thus, the invalidation proceedings started against the trade mark Forest Fresh R-183901, in violation of the above mentioned principle, may be considered as the abuse of the right of protection for a trade mark by the proprietor of such a right, that is not entitled to the protection.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 202/12

September 11th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Apple, Inc. filed the request for invalidation of the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark A.PL registered for goods and services in Class 9, 35 and 42 and owned by the Polish company Internet S.A. from Warszawa. The Polish company also provides an online grocery store under the domain name a.pl. The main arguments presented by the U.S. company were based on confusing similarity between the sign A.PL and national and Community trade marks that are owned by Apple. Arguments based on the unfair use of the reputation were also raised.

R-222253

The Adjudicative Board held the first hearing on 29 august 2012 case no. Sp. 202/12. However, due to the large volume of evidence supplied by Apple, the hearing was adjourned.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 137/12

August 3rd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

BP p.l.c filed before the Polish Patent Office a request for the invalidation of the figurative trade mark R-218916 registered for goods and services in Class 4, 31 and 39 and owned by Albert Korman. BP claimed similarity to its figurative CTM no. 1916550, word-figurative CTM BP no. 4100335 and figurative CTM no. 4236279, that were registered with the earlier priority for goods and services in the same classes. BP noted that it uses a combination of green and yellow colors, especially green and yellow figurative element of the trending-like sun rays on a circular or semicircular shape, for the identification of its services. The Company argued that the goods and services of the trade mark at issue are the same or similar. BP also relied on the judgment of the Polish Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs case file XII GWzt 15/08 in which the court found that the BP’s trade mark is highly distinctive, which may result from both the lack of descriptive elements in the sign as well as with the reputation and goodwill, which the mark has among the buyers.

R-218916

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment 11 April 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 137/12 ruled that due to the fact that the Polish Patent Office correctly decided that there were no indications that the applied trade mark was identical or similar to a trademark for which a right of protection was already granted , therefore, it was pointless to assess the reputation of the previous sign. Since the PPO properly determined that the marks are not similar, any considerations about the use of another’s reputation were not justified. The Court repeated that dissimilar signs cannot produce associations, so there can be no conscious imitation and profiting from someone else’s reputation. The correct view is that the lack of similarity between the signs eliminates the need to examine the use of another’s reputation, as the “precondition” of accepting the argument that the use of reputation has happened, is to determine the similarity between the signs, and the second condition is to establish the applicant’s trade mark has the reputation. This judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2458/11

July 27th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 6 September 2007, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark PRESTIGE OLIMPIC R-197858 for goods in Class 19 such as non-metallic construction materials, timber liners, bonded and not bonded floorboards, flooring lumber, sawn wood, planed and machined wood, construction wood, laminate flooring. This sign was applied for by the Polish company Barlinek S.A. The International Olympic Committee filed a notice of opposition to the decision of the Patent Office. The IOC noted that the name INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMITEE is used since 1894, and the questioned trade mark causes the violation of its property rights and personal interests, in particular the right to the company name. In addition, the IOC claimed that the sign PRESTIGE OLIMPIC is similar to the CTM THE OLYMPICS no. 002827632, registered with the earlier priority, which may cause a risk of consumers confusion. Barlinek S.A. did not agree with such arguments and argued that both trade marks are completely different. The Company pointed out that the goods in Class 19 that are marked with the sign THE OLYMPICS have not been introduced on the Polish market.

The Polish Patent Office in its decision of 6 December 2010 no. Sp. 345/09 dismissed the request. According to the PPO, the words “Olympic” and “Olympics” are similar, but without prejudice to the similarity of signs. The PPO ruled that in this case, the recipients of goods are specialists in the construction industry, who are buying all the supplies at special stores and warehouses or directly from the manufacturers. Therefore, they are deemed as people paying bigger attention, as professionals, to the goods that they purchase. Such professional customers are well-versed in quality, product names and parameters as they are interested and will pay a special attention to who is the manufacturer of the goods.The IOC filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 February 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 2458/11 dismissed it. The Court held that the PPO ruled correctly that multiple signs and trade marks are used as the determination of the Olympic Games. However, no evidence was submitted that the sign THE OLYMPICS is being used in relation to the Olympics. The owner of the CTM did not show the connection between the CTM and any other goods. The sign THE OLYMPICS cannot be deemed as reputed trade mark only because its translation to Polish means Olympic games or Olympics. It is necessary to demonstrate the link between the mark and the goods and/or services. Therefore, the Court decided that the reputation has not been proven. Both signs are written in standard fonts, without any particular distinguishing features, so the same way they are written does not cause that any of the elements of these characters is predominant. The PPO correctly concluded that, despite the similarity of words in the second position in both characters, it cannot be said that the trade marks are confusingly similar. The judgment is not final. The IOC filed a cassation complaint.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 301/12

July 23rd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 21 December 2007, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark TEFAPAK R-199130 for goods in Class 1 such as graphite for industrial purposes, in class 6 for base metal alloys, and in Class 17 for sealants.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company filed a notice of oppostion, arguing that TEFAPAK is similar to its reputed trade mark TEFLON R-49573, that was registered with the earlier priority of 27 September 1968 for goods in Classes 1, 2, 17, 21 and 22.

The Adjudicative Board of the PPO in its decision 17 November 2010 case no. Sp. 388/09 dismissed the opposition. The PPO did not find any similarities between both trade marks. E.I. du Pont filed a complaint against this decsion.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 July 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 301/12 dismissed it. The Court confirmed that, since the signs are not similar the reputation of an opposing trade mark is irrelevant. This judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 16/12

May 29th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK S.A. requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the figurative 3D trade mark WISENT VODKA PŁ 1764 DISTILLED & BOTTLED IN POLMOS LANCUT POLAND R-191793 owned by Fabryka Wódek POLMOS ŁAŃCUT S.A. POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK is the owner of the figurative trade mark POLMOS ŻUBRÓWKA BISON BRAND VODKA R-62081 and the 3D trade mark R-85811 depicting a bottle with a blade of grass inside, that were registered with the earlier priority. POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK argued that there exists the risk of misleading the public because of the similarity of trade marks. The similarity is based on the distinctive element – a blade of grass, that is the distinguishing element of Żubrówka bottle, which leads to the fact that consumers associate the brand with these trade marks. POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK provided evidence that Żubrówka is one of the most popular vodka brands on the Polish market, as well as studies on the presence of Żubrówka brand in the market, materials on advertising campaigns, a research on consumer choices in buying of vodkas. The Company also argued that “a blade in a bottle” was commonly associated with Polmos alcohol trade marks in 1999, when the trade mark portfolio was divided between different companies. POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK claimed the reputation of the trade marks R-46050, R-62081, R-80991, R-85811 and R-125 911, the same as the reputation of Żubrówka vodka trade marks that were acquired by the company.

R-191793

POLMOS ŁANCUT argued that the motifs of the wisent and a grass blade will not change the overall assessment of the compared trade marks, and as such, are associated with this type of vodka. In particular, the grass – Hierochloe odorata, which is necessary for the production of this kind of flavoured vodka. POLMOS ŁAŃCUT noted that the appropriation of these elements in favor of one company would not be justified, because it would limit the freedom of the activities of other competing entrepreneurs. POLMOS ŁAŃCUT provided examples of rights of protection for trade marks containing elements such as leaves and fruit of the rowan, drawings of a coconut or cherry, which are the signs used to mark of products in Class 33.

R-62081

The Polish Patent Office dismissed the request. The PPO agreed that mentioned trade marks are reputed, but they were not similar. The PPO also noted that in the case of trade marks for alcoholic beverages, the consumer’s attention is directed primarily at the label and its contents, as part of communicating the essential information about the brand, type and manufacturer of purchased product, and only then – on the other elements, such as the shape of the bottle or its contents. The PPO decided that POLMOS ŁAŃCUT did not derive any benefits from the reputation the earlier marks. POLMOS ŁAŃCUT carefully created its trade mark in order to fundamentally distinguish it from earlier signs owned by POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK. The only common associations that the compared signs raise come down to the fact that they serve to mark the same kind of vodka. CEDC INTERNATIONAL Sp. z o.o., the successor of POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK, filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 3 April 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 16/12 dismissed it. The Court held that the decision of the PPO did not violate the law in force or the methodology for comparison of trade marks. This judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 468/11

May 17th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 26 October 2009, the Polish Patent Office registered the figurative trade mark R-221206 for goods in Classes 16, 35 and 44. This sign was applied for Fundacja na Rzecz Osób Niewidomych i Niepełnosprawnych “POMÓŻ I TY” z Gdyni (the Foundation for the Benefit of the Blind of Disabled People “YOU CAN HELP TOO”).

R-221206

European Union represented by the Commission filed a notice of opposition to the decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection, claiming that the trade mark incorporated symbols of the EU flag. The Adjudicative Board of the PPO in its decision of 11 May 2012 case no. Sp. 468/11 dismissed the request anddecided that the questioned trade mark is quite distinct from the heraldic of the EU flag, with no resemblance to it.

This decision is not final yet. The EU may file a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court. See also “Trade mark law, case Sp. 158/08” and “Trade mark law, case II GSK 555/09“.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 587/09

April 19th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On November 2006, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark EC R-190902 to PPH EVELINE COSMETICS Piotr Kasprzycki, for goods in Class 03 such as skin care and beauty products for women, men, children and teens, perfumes, washing, cleaning, scouring and bleaching preparations, tissues, cotton wool, cotton buds and sticks for cosmetic purposes, and in other goods in classes 05, 16, 21, 42 and 44.

R-190902

Chanel SARL filed a notice of opposition. The company argued that the trade mark EC R-190902 is confusingly similar to many of Chanel’s trade marks, such as CHANEL R-33924 that was registered with the earlier priority of 2 September 1947 for goods in Class 03 such as soaps and toilet preparations, or the figurative trade mark R-57346 that was registered with the priority of 24 March 1979 for goods in Class 03. Chanel also claimed that the right of protection for the trade mark EC should not be granted because it brought unfair advantage to EVELINE COSMETICS.

R-143536

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 15 March 2012 case no. Sp. 587/09 invalidated the right of protection. The decision is not final yet. EVELINE COSMETICS may file a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1242/11

March 26th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 23 March 2008, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word-figurative 3D trade mark PŁ 1764 R-205770, that was applied for by the Polish company Fabryka Wódek POLMOS ŁAŃCUT S.A, for goods in Class 33 such as vodka. The trade mark represents a glass bottle with a blade of grass put inside, and the crest on the bottle.

R-205770

POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK S.A., the company that was the owner of the word-figurative trade mark POLMOS ŻUBRÓWKA BISON BRAND VODKA R-62081, registered with the earlier priority of 30 August 1985, for goods in Class 33, filed a notice of opposition to the decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection. POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK claimed similarity of signs and identicality of goods. The Company argued that a blade of grass identifies its product’s image, and the long-term presence on the market caused that the trade mark POLMOS ŻUBRÓWKA BISON BRAND VODKA R-62081 created the belief of the recipients of this type of goods, that the alcoholic product with a grass motif comes from POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK. The Company also claimed that its trade mark is the reputed one, and provided rich evidence material including certificates of quality and market position of vodka sold in bottles with a blade of grass, market research results and reports confirming a strong position of trade marks owned by POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK, as well as articles published in specialized trade magazines. POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK claimed that POLMOS ŁAŃCUT acted in bad faith because its strategy and intention was to create and to file for the right of protection for a product that would look like the brand of “Żubrówka” vodka, by giving it a full set of protected characteristics of the trade mark POLMOS ŻUBRÓWKA BISON BRAND VODKA R-62081, and this situation happened long before the filing date of the questioned sign.

R-62081

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office dismissed the request and decided that the comparision of POLMOS ŻUBRÓWKA BISON BRAND VODKA and PŁ 1764 trade marks gave no similarities. The blade of grass inside a bottle may give potential customers certain associations that it is a vodka based on wisent grass. The PPO relied on the provisions of § 3 of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development of 25 January 2007 on the definition of requirements for certain spirit drinks with geographical indications relating to the Polish territory, which specifies requirements for a spirit drink “Herbal Vodka from the North Podlasie Lowland aromatised with an extract of visent grass. The PPO has decided that the vodka producers could use the trade marks containing a blade of grass to indicate the type of vodka. The PPO ruled that these signs are examples of commonly used vodka bottles that were sold in the 80s and 90s of the last century. Such bottles are also present in considerable numbers in the Polish market. Thus, these signs per se do not possess distinctive characteristics. The Adjudicative Board noted that legal commentators emphasizes that the packaging of a product is now deemed as a “silent salesman”, and its appearance affects decisions of customers. A distinctive and visually appealing packaging may cause the client to choose the particular product. The PPO cited K. Jasińska, Naśladownictwo opakowań produktów markowych w świetle prawa własności intelektualnej (in English: Imitation of packagings of branded products in the light of intellectual property rights), Warszawa 2010. The PPO found these arguments relevant to the package created by POLMOS ŁAŃCUT which, in PPO’s opinion differs from other packages available on the market. POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 August 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1242/11 repealed the contested decision and ruled it unenforceable. The VAC decided that the analysis of similarity between the signs including its reputation, in this case, was not exhaustive. The PPO did not consider the dominant elements that draw the attention of the buyer. Although PPO stated that the compared trade marks are 3D signs, but the examination of these elements was reduced to comparison of packages only, i.e. bottles. Although, the PPO stated that as a principle, the visual aspect of a 3D sign, is the shape of package and its content, but these two issues (the shape and contents) were separated in the analysis carried out in this case. The Court found that the long time existence of the characteristic element of 3D signs owned by Polmos Bialystok that were intended for designating vodka products and alcoholic beverages – a blade of grass placed in a simple, transparent bottle, as a whole can easily sink into the minds of customers and build the strength that distinguishes this kind of packagings. The Court pointed out that POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK provided evidence that the original żubrówka can be recognized by a wisent grass blade in the bottle. This would mean that for consumers, contrary to the assessment of the PPO, this 3D element constitutes the dominant part of the trade mark, and it can also influence the perception of the trade mark reputation and the need for protection against dilution. The VAC noted that this case involved more than 20-year presence in the market of a bottle with a grass inside, that was associated with POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK. However, in situation, when the package is transparent, placing a characteristic element inside of the packaging, determines distinctiveness of the whole sign, e.g. two similar bottles. The distinctive 3D form – a blade of grass in the bottle increases the message of each of the word trade marks, brings more originality to signs that are protected for over 20 years. There was no doubt that the floating grass in the bottle is the original message that distinguishes the goods of POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK, and is attributed to the origin of goods produced by this particular company. It was impossible to overlook the fact that consumers are seeing a bottle with a characteristic blade of grass, that is associated by them not only with visent vodka, but they also have a guarantee that this is the original product whose reputation was proved by complex evidence. This means that customers choose a product, guided by the attractiveness of its form, because they “see” in this product a trade mark that originates from POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK, whose quality is known to them. The fact is that all signs have a distinctive element. The Polish Patent Office erred by not attaching any importance to it, despite the fact that POLMOS BIAŁYSTOK was the first company that introduced to market a product with such a distinctive element: a long blade of visent grass.

See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2038/09“.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 211/11

October 6th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

SOREMARTEC S.A. requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the trade mark Raffaello Spumante Dolce Sweet Spumante QUALITA SOPERIORE R-182895 registered for Toruńskie Piwnice Win VINPOL Sp. z o.o., currently VINPOL Sp. z o. o.

R-182895

SOREMARTEC claimed that this sign is similar to the renowned series of RAFFAELLO trade marks registered on its behalf, that the application was filed in bad faith, and that this sign is similar to SOREMARTEC’s trade marks to a degree that causes a risk of misleading the public as to the origin of goods. SOREMARTEC noted that it is aware of VINPOL’s word trade mark RAFFAELLO R-87046 applied for registration in 1993 and subsequent word and figurative trade marks that include in their verbal elements the word “Raffaello”. Therefore, the Company did not oppose the coexistence of Raffaello pralines and sparkling wine bearing the label with the word “Raffaello” on the Polish market. However, the disputed trade mark includes the graphic version of RAFFAELLO that confusingly similar to the one that is consistently used by Ferrero for many years on the packaging of Raffaello pralines. The existence of the contested trade mark would be harmful to both the reputation and distinctiveness of its trade marks, as well as it would be unfairly “impersonating” the reputation of its trade marks without the cost of advertising and promotion. To prove the reputation of its trade marks SOREMARTEC submitted a copy of the public poll report entitled “RAFFAELLO Brand Recognition” and a copy of the report “Development of praline market in Poland”, which shows that the brand RAFFAELLO was in the forefront of the most popular brands of sweets in Poland, its advertising was one of the most remembered and associated advertising of pralines, and Raffaello pralines were among the 10 most frequently purchased and consumed pralines within 6 months preceding the date of the polls. SOREMARTEC also presented a tabulation of the total expenditure on advertising and promotion of Raffaello products in Poland, which have been incurred by Ferrero from 2001 to 2005, and a tabular summary of quantitative results of sales of Raffaello pralines for the period from February 2001 to February 2006. These data indicated that SOREMARTEC has continually expanded and refining the Raffaello’s product line incurring increasing financial investments and extensive marketing campaigns and advertising, so the demand for its products continues to grow. Moreover, SOREMARTEC argued that VINPOL applied for two other trade marks, which verbal element is identical to SOREMARTEC’s trade mark, i.e. MON CHERI R-194468 and word-figurative Mon Cheri CHERRY BRANDY & Delicious 18 High Quality R-203339, and this proves conscious and deliberate action designed to use the reputation of SOREMARTEC’s trademarks. In response, VINIPOL argued that the goods produced by SOREMARTEC, i.e., pralines, and wine are not identical or similar, and therefore there is no risk of misleading the public.

R-203339

The PPO invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark Raffaello Spumante Dolce Sweet Spumante QUALITA SOPERIORE R-182895. The PPO ruled that the circumstances, i.e. several years of presence on the Polish market of Raffaello pralines before the filing date of the contested trade mark, a volume of sales and high percentage of recognition of Raffaello trade marks and its distinctive character, what is the result of both the original form of a trade mark, as well as expenditures on promotion and advertising, confirmed the reputation of Raffaello pralines. According to the PPO, the goods such as alcohol and sweets have many features in common, particularly because they are not consumed for nutritional purposes but for pleasure, such goods can be produced by one company, and may also be sold in a set, or eaten together, which may cause the potential audience to associate sparkling wine with Raffaello pralines. The PPO decided that the contested trade mark, because of its form, will attract the attention of consumers who know the early signs and the goods, in connection with which these trade marks are used. As a result, VINPOL would gain unfair advantage that is mostly based on creating the effect of interest in the goods and services marked with this sign, without having to incur any expenditure on promotion of its goods and services. The PPO has also stressed that the fact that earlier registrations of trade marks for wines with the Raffaello element did not authorize VINPOL to create labels of those products in a form, which resemble them to reputable trade marks, and therefore let VINPOL to benefit from the fact that the recipient seeing the wine Raffaello associate them with products offered by SOREMARTEC that enjoys good reputation among buyers. VINPOL filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 July 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 211/11 dismissed it. The Court noted that provisions of the Polish Act on Industrial Property Law does not contain a legal definition of a reputable/renown trade mark, so the Court had to refer to the opinion developed by case law and doctrine. The Court of Justice in its judgment of 14 September 1999 Case C-375/97 Chevy formulated the definition of a renowned trademark for the first time. The doctrine points out that the reputation of a trade mark depends primarily on the quality of the goods bearing it, the financial investment made by the entrepreneur to promote its sign in the media and the period of time required for the customer to establish relationship between a specified quality with goods that bears a sign that represents this high quality (recognition of goods bearing the trade mark on the market). The passage of time needed for the establishment of reputation of the trade mark is different for goods from different industries. The period of time depends on many factors, in particular on the intensity of advertising surrounding the launch of the goods bearing the sign. Furthermore, by creating a reputation of a trade mark, the advertising function of a sign is also strengthen, because such a mark encourages customers to purchase goods bearing it. This function is the result of an advertising of a sign staggered in time, by the use of a mark by an authorized entity and the relationship created in the minds of consumers between a sign with positive associations, particularly with regard to quality, usefulness, of product, the profitability of its acquisitions, and other characteristics relevant to the recipients of goods bearing the trade. Also the domestic case law provides that the reputation of a trade mark is characterized by market share/participation (both quantity and value of sold goods), range and long-lasting of an advertisment of the product bearing a trade mark, territorial and temporal range of use, licences granted for trade mark use, quality of goods bearing a trade mark, value of a given sign in assessment of an independent financial institution, size and extent of expenditures spent on promotion of a mark, the relationship on prices of substitute goods, if (and to what extent) the mark is used by third party, as it was decided in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 9 May 2008 case file II GSK 506/07, the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 February 2008 case file II GSK 359/07.

The Court ruled that the PPO correctly concluded, based on the evidence presented that SOREMARTEC’s trademarks are reputable, and the sign at issue is similar in such a way that consumers can associate these characters with each other, and the use of this trade mark by VINPOL may bring unfair advantage due to the obvious use of the reputation of the trade marks owned by SOREMARTEC. The evidence showed that Raffaello pralines were present on the Polish market several years before the filing date of the contested trade mark, the sales were rising over the years, the high percentage of recognition of Raffaello, and a significant volume of promotion and advertising, created the image of the brand as a symbol of quality, delicacy and elegance. All this confirms the reputation of Raffaello pralines. At the same time as it was pointed by the Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 3 October 2007, case file I ACa 767/07, there is no requirement of likelihood of confusion in relation to reputed trade mark, only the possibility to associate a sign with a reputed trade mark that was registered earlier, which results that the first sign is able to attract customers through positive images carried by a reputable character. Associations between such trade marks occur when the designation used by the infringer automatically brings in minds of potential customers a reputable character originally used by the owner, even if the recipient is aware of the fact that both entities are completely independent. If these signs are also used to designate similar goods, there is no need to show any additional evidence. Apart whether consumers will confuse this trade mark as to the origin of the goods designated, it will draw attention to goods bearing a renowned trademarks. Such a situation would give unfair advantage resulting only from similarity to the earlier reputed mark, based mainly on the effect of interest that would arouse in the goods covered by the contested mark, without incurring any expenses for promotion of those goods.

Trade mark law, case case Sp. 181/09

August 24th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 15 September 2010 case Sp. 181/09 invalidated the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark LEXUS R-194634 registered for the Polish company Astin sp. z o.o. This trade mark was registered for goods and services in Classes 06, 19, 20 and 37. The request for invalidation was filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Toyota Motor Corporation). Toyota owns renown trade marks LEXUS that were registered with the earlier priority in Poland and in the European Union.

R-194634

The PPO acknowledged the rule that the starting point for finding an infringement of reputation is to determine the similarity of the signs. In the case of combined trade marks (word-figurative), it is always necessary to consider the similarity of all the elements of trade marks being compared, but the verbal elements are crucial. The PPO decided that the dominant and distinctive elements of questioned trade mark and the opposing signs are original and similar words LEXUS. These trade marks are verbally identical. In the opinion of the PPO, the figurative element of the questioned trade mark only exposed and additionally strengthen in the mind of the potential consumer the word element of this trade mark. The PPO also ruled that in the conceptual aspect the sign LEXUS is fanciful one.

Astin claimed that the reputation of LEXUS trade marks has not been sufficiently proved because Toyota did not present evidence on the use in time and territorial use its trade marks, the quality of the goods, market share, and the size of investment in promotions. Toyota presented rich evidence material. These included copies of newspaper articles and advertisements from the years 1992-1999. According to Toyota, these publications indicated that the reputation of LEXUS trade marks has been shaped by long-standing and consistent creation of a positive brand image in the minds of Polish consumers. The PPO noted that there is no legal definition of a reputation. It was the Polish legal doctrine and the courts that have defined the essential criteria for determining what trademark reputation is. Accordingly, the reputation of a trademark is associated with the established opinion among customers about the characteristics of the goods bearing the mark. The reputation is not a simple consequence of the use and circulation of a trademark, but it’s also a well-established and deeply rooted image in the consciousness of buyers of the relevant goods. The reputation of a trademark is a result of the care for the high quality of products, the consistent preservation of a sign on the market by long and intensive advertising. An established reputation of a trademark occurs when the quality of the goods bearing the sign satisfy customers who can easily recognize it and connect with the goods marked by the proprietor, even if it means that the goods are placed on the market for the first time. The reputation of a trademark means its attractive value of advertising, the positive perceptions of the goods bearing the sign. In assessing whether the sign is reputed, one cannot take into the account only the degree of knowledge of a sign among the customers and the extent and intensity of advertising of goods bearing the sign, but also the quality of these goods. Prizes and certificates awarded for the goods bearing the sign, expert opinions and presentation of the goods at trade fairs in order to promote products also show the reputation of the trademark. It was confirmed that the protection of reputed trademarks extends beyond the scope of registration and the selected classes, as reputed trademarks enjoy stronger distinctiveness. However, the burden of proof lies with the holder of the reputed trademark.

The PPO agreed with the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 13 March 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1626/05 that LEXUS trade marks owned by Toyota are renown and reputed signs. See “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1626/05“. The PPO found that the questioned trade mark LEXUS R-194634 was filed for the registration on the date where Toyota’s trade mark enjoyed high recognition on the Polish market and were associated with the luxury brand of cars and the prestigious image of the brand was the subject of intense marketing efforts of the producer. However, the fact that the trade mark is renown is not a sufficient circumstance to invalidate the right of protection, other conditions must be met, namely if the latter registered trade mark on behalf of another party for any kind of goods, would without due cause bring unfair advantage to the applicant or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.

The PPO held that the existence of the questioned trade mark on the Polish market may negatively affect the distinctive ability of Toyota’s trade marks because consumers may start to associate luxury brand with household tools. In addition, the detrimental nature of the registration in question may be manifested in other ways. For instance, it may cause the renown trade mark to become an ordinary sign that has lost the ability to attract the consumer and the strength with which it interacts to the mass public. This decision is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 112/11

July 7th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Sfinks Polska S.A. from Łódź requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the rights of protection for word-figurative trade mark R-179260 owned by Restauracja CLEOPATRA Bachar Aziz from Lublin. Sfinks Polska is the owner of the earlier registered word-figurative trade mark SPHINX R-105162.

R-105162

Sfinks claimed that the trade mark CLEOPATRA R-179260 is similar to its trade mark and argued that it has legal interest in this proceedings as there is a possibility of misleading customers based on the similarity of trade marks. This may be particularly applicable considering the fact that SPHINX trade mark is already known on the market and, therefore, it has a stronger distinctive ability. Sfinks also argued that Bachar Aziz filed its trade mark in bad faith with an intent to use the reputation of Sfinks’ trade marks by suggesting a common origin from a single entity.

R-179260

Bachar Aziz requested the PPO to dismiss the case. He argued the Sfinks lacks legal interest in the invalidation proceedings. Moreover, he noted that the signs, in this case, are different conceptually and phonetically. The characters are not visually similar, the earlier trade mark has the form of a sphinx (face of a man resembling an ancient sculpture) and the sign in question shows a woman’s face (Cleopatra). Mr Aziz also noted that designation of the same services by these trade marks is not sufficient to determine the risk of common origin. In this regard, he relied on the collision-free existence of the two signs on the markets in Płock and Łódź. He pointed that other businesses use the representation of the Sphinx to designate their restaurants.

The Polish Patent Office in its decision case Sp. 396/08 dismissed the request. The PPO held that the trade marks, in this case, are different in all aspects. While assessing the risk of confusion of the recipients of the services offered by the parties to the proceedings, the PPO ruled that customers of restaurants do not act on impulse as shoppers do. When choosing the restaurant they base their actions on good knowledge of the place, recommendation or advertising, so, first of all, they choose a place based on the name, thus, it is the verbal layer of a trade mark (the name of restaurant), not the graphic element, that will be critical to their selection. Sfinks filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 June 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 112/11 overturned the decision of the Polish Patent Office and held it unenforceable based on entirely different circumstances that one could expect. At the hearing before the Court on 3 June 2011, Sfinks’s trade mark attorney argued that she was not present at the hearing on 16 June 2010 in the Polish Patent Office on the ground that the notice of the hearing was set at 11:00 a.m. and a hearing was held on at 10:00 a.m. Therefore, Sfinks could not be represented properly, as its representative was not able to submit evidence. The Court held that Sfinks did not participate in proceedings through no fault of its own and such situation was a violation of the provisions of the Polish Administrative Proceedings Code. The judgement is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2623/10

June 15th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 April 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 2623/10 ruled that, during proceedings for invalidation of the right of protection for trade mark, the applicant should be required to participate actively in evidence proceedings. It should be also noted that in the literature and the case-law on the grounds of general administrative proceedings, it is assumed that the party is not exempted from the obligation to participate actively in the process of gathering evidence, particularly when not proving certain actual circumstances can lead to results unfavorable to the party.

Trade mark law, II GSK 578/10

May 28th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is a sequel to a story described in “Trade mark law, case Sp. 10/08“. In July 2009, the Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark DAKAR R-174205 that was registered for goods in Classes 3, 27, 37, after considering the case on the basis of rich evidence supplied by both parties.

The PPO recognized inter alia the special nature of the opposed trade mark DAKAR IR-606861, that wasregistered for goods in Classes 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 41, which in addition to its traditional function of determining the origin of goods, is also the name of the famous rally raid. In explaining its position, the PPO used arguments on a function of a trade mark known as the “merchandising function” and cited D. Keeling, Intellectual Property Rights in EU Law: Free movement and competition law, Oxford, 2003. When examining the circumstances of the case, the PPO concluded that DAKAR IR-606861 trade mark is a reputed one. The PPO pointed to the existing methods for assessing the reputation – the absolute and relative. The first method takes primarily into account the percentage of a certain degree of knowledge of the trade mark on the market (as established by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 August 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 757/07). The relative method, in addition to knowledge of the trade mark, emphasizes other criteria, including market share in terms of quantity and value of goods sold, the scope and length of the advertising of the product marked with the sign, territorial and temporal scope of the use of the trade mark, licenses granted, the quality of the goods, the value of a sign in the assessment of independent financial institutions, the size of the expenditure incurred in connection with the promotion of the trade mark and the relationship to the price of substitute goods. Public opinion polls, prizes and awards, publications, press releases, rankings, reports, invoices and other business records, and various promotional materials can serve as evidence. The PPO cited the judgment of the COJ of 14 September 1999 in C 375/97, General Motors Corporation, the judgment of Supreme Administrative Court of 21 November 2006, case file II GSK 181/06 and the decision of OHIM of 25 April 2001 in case R 283/1999-3. See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07“.

When referring to the transfrontier nature of the reputation of a trade mark, the PPO found that the Paris-Dakar rally, although it takes place outside the Polish borders, has many fans, as evidenced by the data on viewing TV programs on the rally – from 550000 to over 1200000 people, which according to the PPO, proved a high popularity. The PPO cited the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 8 November 2005 case file VI SA/Wa 845/05 (VALENTINO) and the judgment of VAC of 13 March 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1626/05 (LEXUS). See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 845/05” and “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1626/05“. When deciding on the unfair advantage, the Polish Patent Office found that in this case, the Polish company will be able to count on the positive reaction of customers without spending too much money on the promotions, because they will buy the goods by associating them with the sign of the French company and consequently with the rally organized by this company.

The Polish company DAKAR from Krasne filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a jugment of 29 December 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1938/09, ruled that the word Dakar also means the capital city of Senegal, and such argument escaped PPO’s attention during the analysis of all the facts and evidence gathered. In this aspect this sign also fulfills political and economic role. Therefore, the name of Dakar has long been known as an exotic name of the city and it should not be attributed exclusively to one company. The VAC anulled the Polish Patent Office’s decision and decided that the decision was not subject to execution. Paris Dakar filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 25 May 2011 case file II GSK 578/10 overturned the questioned judgment and sent the case back for reconsideration. The SAC ruled that given the nature of Paris-Dakar business, the PPO properly established the reputation of the trade mark DAKAR IR-606861. The SAC did not agree with the criteria for assessing the reputation of a trade mark that were adopted by the VAC. The Court ruled that the reputation cannot be examined so strictly because organization of sports events is a specific activity and the reputation associated by its trade mark is also conveyed by the media.

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 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 II GSK 849/09

December 8th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2005, the Polish Patent Office registered the word-figurative trade mark MASTER COOK JAPART R-164044 for Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe “JAPART” Zakład Pracy Chronionej from Panki. Podravka Prehrambena Industrija form Koprivnica Croatia, the owner of the word-figurative trade mark “PODRAVKA VEGETA” R-138057, gave reasoned notice of opposition to the final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection.

R-138057

The PPO in its decision of 13 June 2008 case no. Sp. 523/06 ruled that “PODRAVKA VEGETA” is the reputed trade mark, although Podravka Prehrambena also supplied very worthless evidence materials. However, the PPO agreed with the owner that its trade mark was introduced on the Polish market in 1994, which was properly supported by documents issued on 11 October 1994 by the company’s marketing department. From this date the reputation of the trade mark could have been created and the existence of reputation is established before the date of application for the trade mark. In case of “MASTER COOK JAPART” it was before 3 April 2002. Therefore, the PPO invalidated the right of protection. Japart filed a complaint.

R-164044

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 22 May 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2147/08 dismissed it. The Court came to the conclusion that Japart used a specific, multi-element composition of a reputed mark. The Court held that the likelihood of obtaining unfair advantage from the reputed trade mark is the obstacle that justifies the refusal to grant an exclusive right to sign that is identical or similar to the earlier a famous mark. It was therefore sufficient to assume that the applicant could use investments and financial efforts, which have previously been made by the owner of earlier trade mark to build an attractive image of the mark and attract customers. Japart filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 October 2010 case file II GSK 849/09 agreed with the VAC and dismissed the case. See also “Unfair competition, case I ACa 1270/10“.

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 two 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 marks, 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. Guccio Gucci S.p.A. 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 I ACa 767/07

October 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Wrocław in its judgment of 3 October 2007 case file I ACa 767/07, published in Lex no. 519252, held that reputable characters in comparison with other signs are characterized by stronger distinguishing ability that results from good information and notions of quality and prestige, provided by a sign to potential customers, facilitating the sale of goods bearing that trade mark.At the same time, such trade mark has a measurably market value and represents a significant, or even dominant component of the company’s assets. A reputed trade mark is protected even outside of its class or classes. Because, in such cases, advertising and qualitative functions of a trade mark are protected, and not the function of designation of origin of the product or service. The term of reputation refers both to the registered trade marks as well as well-known signs that are not registered.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1873/08

July 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 25 May 2005, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark MIESZKO R-165555 for goods in Class 29. ZAKŁADY PRZEMYSŁU CUKIERNICZEGO “MIESZKO” S.A. filed a notice of oppostion. MIESZKO S.A. claimed infringement of its company name and identicality with its trade mark MIESZKO R-87813 registered with an earlier priority for goods in Class 30. The PPO dismissed the opposition and ruled that both trade marks are identical, but Mieszko is a male name of Slavic origin, and the goods differ to the extent that there is no risk of consumers confusion. The very similarity of the signs, however, cannot be a sufficient argument to invalidate the right of protection for the word mark.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 17 March 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1873/08 dismissed the complaint.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2013/09

June 23rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 April 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 2013/09, held that the reputation is not a simple consequence of circulation of a trade mark on the market.

R-179043

The renown trade mark is one that has its own reputation, and so in addition to its recognition it must be distinguished by additional characteristics, i.e. market share (in terms of both quantity and value of traded goods), the extent and continuity of advertising of the product marked with the sign, territorial and temporal scope of trade mark use, licenses granted for the use of the trade mark, the quality of the goods, the value of a trade mark in the assessment of independent financial institutions, the amount of expenditures incurred in connection with the promotion of trade mark, the relationship to the price of substitute goods, whether (and if so, to what extent) the mark was used by third parties.

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

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1988/09

April 15th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Kraft Foods Polska Spółka Akcyjna from Warsaw, the owner of PRINCE POLO R-148617 trade mark gave a reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a a right of protection to MARCO POLO R-174796 trade mark that was applied for by Zakłady Przemysłu Cukierniczego MIESZKO S.A. for goods in class 30.

Kraft Foods claimed that there is a risk of confusion between these trade marks, which is the result of the similarity of the compared signs and the identity of the goods. Kraft also submitted evidence to prove the reputation of PRINCE POLO trade mark. Mieszko argued that the signs are dissimilar because the graphic/figurative element of these marks is essential, and verbal elements are blurred or faint and even minor. Mieszko also found arguments of POLO PRINCE reputation very questionable, because even Kraft indicated that the goods for which its trade marks are registered marks are cheap and directed for the mass consumer.

The Polish Patent Office (PPO) In a decision of 23 April 2009, ruled that the same element POLO does not determine the similarity between both signs, because the differences occurring in the conceptual aspect rule out the risk of consumer confusion as to the origin of goods. The PPO held that contrary to the Kraft’s arguments, Marco Polo sign will primarily be associated by purchasers of goods with a famous explorer, because it is simply his name. However, PRINCE POLO sign, regardless of how it can be translated into Polish, is not used to identify a specific person and it is not a proper name. Despite the recognition of Kraft’s trade marks on the Polish market, the average consumer will associate MARCO POLO in the first place with a person of a traveler rather than as Kraft claimed with its PRINCE POLO trade marks. Therefore, the PPO rejected the notice of opposition. Kraft filed a complaint to the administrative court.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 11 February 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 1988/09, agreed with the PPO’s assessment of the similarity and ruled that since the signs are not similar then the discussion about using someone else’s reputation is not justified. Dissimilar signs cannot cause association in consumer’s mind, so there can be no question of imitation, and conscious deriving of benefits from someone else’s reputation.

Kraft filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 746/10“.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 233/09

March 8th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for 3MA R-171362 trade mark owned by the Polish company MARMA Polskie Folie Sp. z o.o. The proceeding were initiated by the 3M Company, the owner of 3M R-84046 and word-figurative 3M R-84047 trade marks. The American company has claimed the reputation of its signs and argued that the registration of 3MA R-171362 trade mark would bring its owner unfair advantage and it would be detrimental to the distinctive character and the reputation of 3M’s trade marks. The complaint of MARMA Polskie Folie Sp. z o.o. company was rejected by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a judgment of 9 October 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 233/09.

The VAC ruled that in the absence of a legal definition of the reputation it was the legal doctrine and the courts who have defined the essential criteria for determining the reputation of the trade mark. Accordingly, the reputation of the trade mark is associated with the established opinion among customers about the characteristics of the goods bearing the mark. The reputation is not a simple consequence of the use and circulation of a trade mark, but it’s also a well-established and deeply rooted image in the consciousness of buyers of vital goods. The reputation of a trade mark is a result of the care for the high quality of products, the consistent preservation of a sign on the market by long and intensive advertising. An established reputation of a trade mark occurs when the quality of the goods bearing the sign satisfy customers who can easily recognize it and connect with the goods marked by the proprietor, even if it means that the goods are placed on the market for the first time. The reputation of a trade mark means its attractive value of advertising, the positive perceptions of the goods bearing the sign. In assessing whether the sign is reputed, one cannot take into the account only the degree of knowledge of a sign among the customers and the extent and intensity of advertising of goods bearing the sign, but also the quality of these goods. Prizes and certificates awarded for the goods bearing the sign, expert opinions and presentation of the goods at trade fairs in order to promote products also show the reputation of the trade mark. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

See also “Poland: proving the fame of a trade mark“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1111/08

January 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 July 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 237/08 dismissed Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation’s appeals against the Polish Patent Office decisions of 19 March 2007 case files Sp. 68/04 and Sp. 69/04, regarding the invalidation of the right of protection for word-figurative trade marks TIFFANY R-128063 and “Tiffany & Broadway Inc.” R-128064 which were registered in class 25 for shoes. The New York’s company argued inter alia that use of TIFFANY trade mark for goods such as footwear is a parasitic activity that uses another’s trade mark reputation and is bringing undue financial benefit to the holder of national registrations. The Company also stressed the fact that its trade mark is subject to protection under article 8 of the Paris Convention.

The VAC ruled that the application for the protection of the TIFFANY mark for goods in class 25 was contrary to the principles of social coexistence because it caused the risk of weakening the reputation of the trade mark. Given the fact that the shoes are cheap and readily available, there is a risk of dilution of the reputation of TIFFANY trade mark and it may lead to lose its attractiveness among the exclusive clientele of goods bearing this mark.

The SAC in a judgment of 8 July 2009, case file II GSK 1111/08 ruled that the old Polish Act of 31 January 1985 on Trade Marks – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, subsequent amendments, do not explicitly provide for any special protection for unregistered reputed trade marks. However, the doctrine and the Polish case law have already accepted the concept, that such protection could be provided under article 8(1) of the TMA.

A trademark shall not be registrable if:
1) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;

In particular looking at the circumstance of “a trade mark conflicting with the principles of social coexistence”, from the subjective perspective – it was commented that, the “contradiction/variance with the principles of social coexistence” may concerning the conduct/behavior of the applicant. On the basis of such conclusions, the registration of a sign for the goods of another kind, if the registration was intended to use the reputation of another’s trade mark or it was a threat of such reputation, was excluded. A trade mark application that was filed contrary to the principles of social coexistence, was an application made in bad faith. The absolute grounds/obstacles that are provided against the registration of the mark as defined in article 8(1) of the TMA do not directly refer to the relationship between the sign that was applied for and any other competing trade mark, however, in accordance with the accepted interpretation of that provision, in case of the infringement of the rules of social coexistence, the obstacle could be the inappropriate behavior on the applicant (its actions done in bad faith). The assessment of applicant’s actions, who was motivated by the desire to use another’s trade mark reputation, should therefore be also varied according to circumstances of its motivation and, not only related to the trade mark itself.

The application for the right of protection for a trade mark that was made with the intent to use another trade mark’s reputation should be judged as an application that was made with the breach of the rules of social coexistence (application made in bad faith), regardless of whether it concerns a reputed registered trade mark or unregistered reputed trade mark.

The Polish case law, for instance the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 May 2008, case file II GSK 506/07, that was previously reported in the post entitled “Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07“, already established the rule that in a case of famous trade mark and its reputation, besides its recognition, it must be also characterized by the following characteristics:

market share/participation (both quantity and value of sold goods),
range and long-lasting of an advertisment of the product bearing a trade mark,
territorial and temporal range of use,
licences granted for trade mark use, quality of goods bearing a trade mark,
value of a given sign in assessment of an independent financial institution,
size and extent of expenditures spent on promotion of a mark,
the relationship on prices of substitute goods,
if (and to what extent) the mark is used by third party.

The SAC also noted that the Community case law provides several fundamental conditions for the recognition of a trade mark as a reputed one. These are:

knowledge of the trade mark by a significant group of customers,
the contribution of the trade mark in the market,
intensity and geographic scope of the use,
intensity matching of goods with the trade mark,
the size of expenditures on advertising and promotion of the trade mark.

The SAC cited, inter alia, the judgment of the Court of Justice of the UE of 14 September 1999 case C-375/97, General Motors and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2004 case T-8/03, El Corte Ingles and the CFI’s judgment of 25 May 2005 case T-67/04, Spa Finders.

It is also clear that the reputation of a trade mark must be assessed and established in the country in which the protection is sought. If one would like to qualify a given trade mark as a reputed one in the Republic of Poland, then the argument of the international reputation of a trade mark is not sufficient. The basic circumstance for the recognition of the reputation of a sign in a specific country is to show by a person who is invoking this argument, the market share in terms of both quantity and value of goods sold.

The SAC held that provisions of the First Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 do not preclude the possibility of granting the protection to unregistered reputed trade marks under the national law. Just to keep it in order, it is worth adding, that the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments, provides for such a possibility in the Article 132(2)(iii).

2) A right of protection for a trademark shall not be granted, if the trademark:
(iii) is identical or similar to a renown trademark registered or applied for registration with an earlier priority (provided that the latter is subsequently registered) on behalf of another party for any kind of goods, if it without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the applicant or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark. The above provision shall apply to well-known trademarks accordingly.

The protection of registered trade marks to the extent of the wording of Article 4(4)(a) of the Directive. The trade mark application that was made in bad faith shall be rejected based on the absolute ground for refusal of protection based on the provisions of Article 131(2)(i) of the IPL.

2. A right of protection shall not be granted for a sign, if:
(i) it has been applied for protection with the Patent Office in bad faith,

The SAC ruled that the provisions of Article 4(4)(a) of the Directive cannot be interpreted as the maximum limitation for the protection of famous marks in the national law and it would be difficult to follow the arguments that the First Directive 89/104 is an example of the so-called “complete harmonization” citing the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 January 2003 in case C-292/00, Davidoff & Cie S. A.

According to the SAC, the court of first instance (VAC) wrongly assumed the bad faith of the applicant and it did not consider the fact that the applicant has conducted its business in Poland since 1990 with the use of the mark, and after about five years of its activity, the company applied for the registration of the mark. These circumstances certainly were not indifferent to assess the intentions and purposes of the applicant so the VAC should address them in the grounds of the appeal.

When deciding on the interpretation of Article 8(1) of the TMA, which allows for the protection of not registered reputed trade marks in Poland, it should be also noted, that such protection have a special character because it applies to unregistered marks, and it is an exception to the principle of protecting industrial property rights by the registration process. This requires preserving much care, so that without proper justification, would not depreciate the importance of registering trade mark and it would not reduced the registration to a purely formal procedure that has no importance.

Therefore, the SAC annulled both questioned judgments of the Voivodeship Administrative Court and returned to the VAC for reconsideration in accordance with the conclusions reached and ordered the Polish Patent Office to pay Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation 1200 PLN as reimbursement of costs of the cassation compliant.

See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 1110/08” and “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 214/08“.