Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 162 IPL

Trade mark law, case II GSK 487/12

June 27th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

On May 2006, the Polish Patent Office granted the joint right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark SILMENT R-175055 for three Polish entrepreneurs – Stanisław Wilk, Jan Kosmala and Marek Siemiński. Mr Wilk requested the PPO for a change in the trade mark register. According to the donation agreement of January 2010, he has transferred to his son 1.65% of 33% of his share in the right to the trade mark. On June 2010, the PPO entered the name of his son and deleted Stanisław Wilk, however, after the request for re-examination, the PPO made another changes in the column A of the trade mark register, and entered both father and son as co-owners. Mr Kosmala filed a comaplaint against this decision. He argued that the supplied evidence did not allow for making such amendments. Mr Kosmala did not agree that a part of 33% share could be transferred to another person, because according the agreement of 2004 on the joint ownership, that was signed between Kosmala, Siemiński and Wilk senior, any joint owner could make a donation of the joint right to the right of protection for a trade mark SILMENT R-175055 only to the spouse and descendants of the first group of inheritance.

R-175055

The Voivideship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 25 October 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1409/11 noted that between co-owners to the trade mark SILMENT arose a dispute over the interpretation of the agreement. The Court ruled that, in principle, the right of protection for a trademark may be assigned or be subject to succession. The transfer of the right of protection may be effected only with the consent of the parties who enjoy that right. The agreement of assignment of a share in the joint right of protection should be only valid subject to the consent given by all of the joint owners. When examining the request for the change in the trade mark register, the PPO should investigate whether the submitted documents, supposed to provide grounds for taking a decision on entry in a register, are in accordance with this Polish Industrial Property Law and satisfy the effective provisions as to form. The entries should not be binding on an authority whose responsibilities, under the provisions of law, include deciding on a document founding the decision on entry in a register or in a case, the outcome of which may affect a decision of the Polish Patent Office on entry in the register. The “registry-entry” proceedings are designed to adjust the content of an entry with the current legal status, and a decision on the entry into the trade mark register has only a declaratory nature and it not a source of trade mark rights. Therefore, the cognition of the Polish Patent Office in matters of entries in the registry, is strictly defined. This means that while investigating the request for a change, the PPO cannot exceed those limits. As a result, the PPO cannot investigate the regularity of both the preparation of the documents submitted as a basis for entry in the registry, as well as make their interpretation. As there is dispute between the parties over the interpretation of the agreement, the PPO cannot agree to the interpretation of one of the parties. These doubts have to be resolved by a civil court. And if such dispute has not been initiated by a party, the PPO should stay proceedings and call the party to apply to the competent court, within the prescribed time, to provide a preliminary decision on the issue which is a condition of the settlement in the main case. Therefore,the Court annulled the contested decision, ruled it unenforceable, and ordered the PPO to consider the Court’s arguments during re-examination of the case.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 June 2013 case file II GSK 487/12 dismissed the cassation complaint. The SAC held that the controversy concerning the effects of the donation agreement in the light of the content of the co-ownership of a trade mark rights, has to be resolved by a proper civil court.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 122/12

November 27th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 2004, JOOP! GmbH requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the word trade mark JUUPI ! R-103654 registered for goods in Class 3 and owned by “AQUAREL” Kosiorek Spółka Jawna. The German company argued that JUUPI ! is similar to its trade marks JOOP! R-64463 and JOOP! IR-73926 that were registered with the earlier priority. The PPO in its decision of 7 February 2006 no Sp. 323/04 dismissed the request. Joop! filed a complaint against this decision, but the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 October 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 1339/06 dismissed it. Joop! decided to file a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 July 2007 case file II GSK 98/07 overturned the judgment of the VAC and sent it back for further reconsideration. The SAC held that the PPO and the VAC misinterpreted the provisions of the Polish Industrial Property Law with regard to the knowledge and awareness of the requesting party on the use of the later trade mark for a period of five successive years. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 October 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 1403/07 re-examined the case in accordance with what has been determined by the Supreme Administrative Court. The case went back to the PPO. Meanwhile, JOOP! GmbH transferred the rights to JOOP! R-64463 and JOOP! IR-73926 to COTY B.V. COTY appointed its representative (advocate), who submitted to the case file properly paid power of attorney that authorized him to act in this particular case, together with a copy of the relevant register of companies, however it was not recorded in the minutes and documents offered have not been adopted in the case file, which also has not been recorded in the minutes of the hearing, because the Polish Patent Office did not consider these requests and documents as coming from the party of the proceedings. The PPO dismissed the request, and decided that opposed trade marks are not similar, and the reputation of JOOP! R-64463 has not been proven. COTY filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Admiistrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 2 August 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 122/12 dismissed it and ruled that the existence of legitimacy to file a complaint is subject to examination by the administrative court. This is the basic step, the result of which depends on the further course of the proceedings. The finding by the court that the complaint to the administrative court was brought by a party without legitimacy to file such a complaint, resulting in dismissal of the complaint without examining the merits of the contested decision. The Court held that the transfer (assignment) of trade mark rights in the course of proceedings before the Court for invalidation of the right of protection for a trade mark, i.e. rights to a trade mark that was used as an opposing sign, does not create the right for the new owner to seek legal interest (locus standi) in this proceedings as a party to the proceedings.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1530/11

April 16th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On May 2007, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark Vondutch R-190394, that was applied for by “SEREN TEKSTIL” Sp. z o.o. for goods in Class 25 and Class 35. The Irish company V D Europe from Dublin filed a notice of opposition to the decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection. V D Europe argued that it is the owner of the CTM VON DUTCH no. 000336495, that was registered with the earlier priority of 8 August 1996 for good in Class 25. On 20 January 2010, the patent attorney representing V D Europe informed the PPO that the company Royer Brands International Sàrl is the new owner of the CTM VON DUTCH. The representative provided proper evidence of total transfer of ownership, and the POA from the new owner.

CTM 000336495

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 3 February 2010 case no. Sp. 499/08 dismissed the opposition, and decided that Royer Brands International has no rights to conduct proceedings that were started by another company. The PPO ruled that Royer Brands International is not related structurally, financially, or linked in any legal way with V D EUrope. The PPO decided that the request was unfounded, because the owner sold its rights to a trade mark. Royer Brands International filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 23 November 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1530/11 repealed the contested decision, ruled it unenforceable, and returned the case to the PPO for further reconsideration. The Court found that Royer Brands International has confirmed all the declarations of will and actions that were taken during the opposition proceedings by every person acting on the basis of previously submitted POA. In the opinion of the Court, the wording of Article 162 of 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 of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments, was deciding in the present case.

Article 162
1. The right of protection for a trade mark may be assigned or be subject to succession. The provisions of Article 67(2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.

1¹. The right of protection for a trade mark may be transferred to the organizations referred to in Articles 136 and 137 as a collective trade mark or collective guarantee trade mark respectively or to a number of entities as a collective right of protection.

1². Transfer of the right of protection, referred to in paragraph (1¹) may be effected only with the consent of the parties who enjoy that right.

1³. Entry in the trade mark register of the transfer of the right of protection, referred to in paragraph (1¹) after the regulations governing use of the trade mark, referred to in Article 122 (2), Article 136(2) or Article 137(1) have been submitted.

1⁴. A collective right of protection may be transferred to a single party as a right of protection for a trade mark.

2. (deleted)

3. The right of protection for a collective trade mark may be assigned as a joint right of protection to the undertakings grouped in the organisation referred to in Article 136. The contract of assignment shall determine the rules governing the use of such trade mark to the extent to which it is practised in respect of the regulations referred to in Article 122(2).

3¹. A collective right of protection may be transferred to the organizations referred to in Articles 136 and 137 as a collective trade mark or a collective guarantee mark. A contract for the transfer of the right should specify the rules governing use of that trade mark to the extent as it is provided for in respect of the regulations referred to in Article 136(2) and Article 137(1) respectively.

4. The right of protection for a trade mark may also be assigned in respect of certain goods for which the right of protection has been granted, if the goods for which the trade mark remains registered on behalf of the vendor are not of the same kind. Once assigned, the right in question shall be dealt with as independent of the right enjoyed by the vendor.

5. The contract of assignment of a share in the joint right of protection shall be valid subject to the consent given by all of the joint owners.

6. Paragraphs (1), (3) to (5) shall apply accordingly to the right deriving from an application filed with the Patent Office, for which no right of protection has yet been granted.

This provision introduces a general principle of transferability of the right of protection for a trade mark. The disposal of rights of protection may be primarily based on a contract of sale, exchange, or a contract of donation. However, it should be also stressed that the agreement transferring the right of protection shall be in writing, in order to be valid. Also, the relevant provisions of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments, were applicable in this case.

Article 30.
§ 1. Legal capacity and the capacity to enter into legal transactions shall be determined according to the provisions of civil law, unless specific provisions provide otherwise.

§ 2. Natural persons with no capacity to enter into legal transactions shall act through their legal representatives.

§ 3. Parties not being natural persons shall act through their legal or statutory representatives.

§ 4. In matters concerning transferable or hereditable rights, in case of a transfer of the right or death of the party during the pendency of the proceedings the legal successors of the party shall join the proceedings in lieu of the party.

In the opinion of the Court, Royer Brands International, under the law being in force in the Republic of Poland, has not only become the legal successor to the CTM VON DUTCH, which was the results of the valid contract of transfer of the Community trade mark, that was accepted and confirmed by OHIM in 2009, but is also the legal successors in the opposition proceedings. This means that the PPO has committed a violation of the provisions of substantive law (regulations included in Article 162 of the IPL) through their incorrect interpretation, and consequently its improper application in the case. Furthermore, the Court ordered the PPO a careful analysis of the substantive merits of the opposition, including the similarity of the signs.

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 II GSK 248/06

July 21st, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 55/06“. Piotr Dyszkiewicz and Zbigniew Anozy – both partners of civil partnership, unsatisfied with the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, have filed a cassation complaint.

Z-223847

The Supreme Administrative Court its judgment of 22 March 2007 case file II GSK 248/06 repealed both the questioned order of the Polish Patent Office and the judgment of the VAC. The SAC based its conclusions on procedural matters. According to the SAC, all problems discussed by the VAC with regard to the co-ownership of THERMO SHIELD Z-223847 trade mark application and partners who quit the cvil partnership, were not a procedural issue, but it concerned very important merits, namely, who should be granted the right of protection for the trade mark for certain goods. The provisions the IPL does not provide that such an issue could be resolved by the order in the proceedings, i.e. before the adoption of a decision of the Polish Patent Office on the termination of the proceedings regarding THERMO SHIELD Z-223847 trade mark application. This is a substantive matter and a conclusion can be taken only in the decision of the PPO issued in proceedings involving all the people who made the trade mark application as partners of the civil partnership.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 55/06

July 21st, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 8 September 2000, partners of a civil partnership, filed an application for word-figurative trade mark TERMO SHIELD Z-223847. This application was filed by natural persons, since these are separate entrepreneurs. Civil partnership is formed through an agreement by the partners to achieve a common business purpose. The civil partnership does not qualify as an entrepreneur. The term entrepreneur should be used only to partners of a civil partnership, and not to a partnership itself. Civil partnership has no legal personality and has no legal capacity (a capacity to be a party in legal proceedings).

Z-223847

Two partners resigned. The other filed a request to the Polish Patent Office (PPO) to make change in the Trade Mark Register with regard to persons entitled from the application. The PPO refused to make such changes. The Polish Patent Office has recognized that this was only a withdrawal from the agreement concluded between individuals. The individual partners are separate entities for the PPO and others, and the right to the applied trade mark is a co-ownership/joint tenacy. The withdrawal of two partners can not affect the change of the holder of the trade mark application according to article 162(1) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments.

Article 162
1. The right of protection for a trademark may be assigned or be subject to succession. The provisions of Article 67(2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.
1¹. The right of protection for a trademark may be transferred to the organizations referred to in Articles 136 and 137 as a collective trademark or collective guarantee trademark respectively or to a number of entities as a collective right of protection.
1². Transfer of the right of protection, referred to in paragraph (1¹) may be effected only with the consent of the parties who enjoy that right.
1³. Entry in the trademark register of the transfer of the right of protection, referred to in paragraph (1¹) after the regulations governing use of the trademark, referred to in Article 122 (2), Article 136(2) or Article 137(1) have been submitted.
1⁴. A collective right of protection may be transferred to a single party as a right of protection for a trademark.
2. (deleted)
3. The right of protection for a collective trademark may be assigned as a joint right of protection to the undertakings grouped in the organisation referred to in Article 136. The contract of assignment shall determine the rules governing the use of such trademark to the extent to which it is practised in respect of the regulations referred to in Article 122(2).
3¹. A collective right of protection may be transferred to the organizations referred to in Articles 136 and 137 as a collective trademark or a collective guarantee mark. A contract for the transfer of the right should specify the rules governing use of that trademark to the extent as it is provided for in respect of the regulations referred to in Article 136(2) and Article 137(1) respectively.
4. The right of protection for a trademark may also be assigned in respect of certain goods for which the right of protection has been granted, if the goods for which the trademark remains registered on behalf of the vendor are not of the same kind. Once assigned, the right in question shall be dealt with as independent of the right enjoyed by the vendor.
5. The contract of assignment of a share in the joint right of protection shall be valid subject to the consent given by all of the joint owners.
6. Paragraphs (1), (3) to (5) shall apply accordingly to the right deriving from an application filed with the Patent Office, for which no right of protection has yet been granted.

The basis for the change of the persons applying for trade mark protection should be a waiver or transfer of this right. In this case, it did not happen. The PPO does not intervene in the mutual settlement between the partners. It is an internal matter of their contractual relationship.

Two dissatisfied partners filed a complaint with the court. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 April 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 55/06 has recognized that all partners of the civil partnership applied for protection of the trade mark in question. The Court agreed with the PPO, that the mere resignation of the two partners may not affect the change of the holder of the trade mark application. The basis for the change in Trade Mark Registry may be the court order on the settlement between the partners in the property (the right of protection for a trade mark is the economic right), or the waiver of the right to trade mark application or its disposal or transfer. This requirement follows from articles 67(2), 162(1) and 168 of the IPL.

Article 67
1. The patent may be assigned or be subject to succession.
2. The transfer contract shall be in writing on pain of invalidity.
3. The transfer of a patent shall be binding on third parties as from the date of its entry in the Patent Register.

Article 168
1. The right of protection for a trademark shall lapse:
(i) on expiry of the term of protection for which it has been granted,
(ii)on surrender of the right by the owner thereof before the Patent Office, with the consent of the parties having their rights therein.
2. The surrender of the right, referred to in paragraph (1)(ii), may also concern only certain goods for which the right has been granted (restriction of the list of the goods).
3. The surrender of a share in the joint right shall result in the transfer of the share on behalf of the other joint owners, proportionally to their shares.
4. Subject to paragraph (3), in the case referred to in paragraph (1)(ii), the Patent Office shall take a decision on the lapse of the right of protection.

The Court held that the IPL is a lex specialis in relation to the Civil Code. The PPO would infringe on the rights of partners the civil partnership if it has made changes to the Trade Mark Registry with regard to entitled persons, only on the basis of changes in composition of the civil partnership. The settlement between the partners is not a cognition of the Polish Patent Office. The order of the PPO does not create the composition of the civil partnership by establishing that the partners who left are engaged in representing the company. Only the agreement on the civil partnership determines who is a partner of such a civil partnership. The order of the PPO concerns only their right to the application for the grant of a right of protection for a trade mark. This right has the nature of co-ownership/joint tenacy of all partners, unless it is regulated different as described above, i.e. by he settlement between the partners in the property, or the waiver of the right to trade mark application or its disposal or transfer.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 248/06“.