Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 169(2) IPL

Trade mark law, case II GSK 839/10

January 17th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Nufarm Australia Limited, the owner of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY R-164428 registered for goods in Class 5, requested the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection for DUAL IR-0534713 owned by Syngenta Participations AG. Earlier before, Syngenta opposed the registratin of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY R-164428.

Syngenta requested the PPO to dismiss the request. The Company provided evidence of use of the trade mark DUAL IR-0534713. There were six copies of VAT invoices from the period from 2002 to 2006, of sale of goods bearing the sign “DUAL GOLD 960 EC”, and two newspaper articles concerning this product and the material safety data sheets of “DUAL GOLD 960 EC of August 2005.

The Polish Patent Office decided on the lapse of the right of protection for DUAL IR-0534713 and dismissed the opposition against the registration of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY R-164428. Syngenta filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 March 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1807/09 dismissed it. Syngenta filed a cassation compliant.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 October 2011 case file II GSK 839/10 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. The SAC ruled that the cassation complaint can be based on the following grounds: a) the violation of substantive law by its erroneous interpretation or misuse, or the violation of proceedings rules, if it could affect the outcome of the case. The specific provisions of substantive law or procedural law, which were violated the court of first instance, should be indicated. Furthermore, it should be precisely explained What was the misapplication or misinterpretation – in relation to substantive law, or it should be demonstrated what was the significant impact of the violation of procedural law to decide the case by the court of first instance – in relation to the rules of proceedings. The Supreme Administrative Court cannot change or precise cassation complaints and their grounds, or otherwise correct them, due to limitations resulting from the mentioned rules. If the cassation complaint alleges violation of both substantive law and proceedings, as it was in the present case, the Supreme Administrative Court recognizes the allegation of violation of proceedings, in the first place.

The SAC decided the PPO has erred in its findings because it considered that the evidence submitted on, was from the years 2002-2006, while there was also an invoice from March 2007 on the case file, which was of the relevance to the case. It was a sales invoice of the preparation DUAL GOLD 960 EC 12 XI and DUAL GOLD 960 EC 4X 5 L. Surprisingly, the Supreme Administrative Court acknowledged, that the case facts showed that the trade mark DUAL GOLD lapsed on June 2006, so as a trade mark it ceased to exist on the market from that date (it was not registered). Since the trade mark DUAL GOLD ceased to exist in legal transactions after June 2006, the Polish Patent Office should examine whether this sign could be used in this situation, as indicated on the invoice of March 2007, or perhaps the invoice indicated the use of any other trade mark, for example, the trade mark DUAL, and therefore the Article 170 (1) of the IPL should be applied in this case.

Article 170
1. Subject to paragraph (2), the Patent Office shall dismiss a request for declaring the right of protection lapsed in the case referred to in Article 169(1)(i), if before the submission of the request genuine use of the mark has started or has been resumed.

2. Start or resumption of the use of the trademark after the expiration of an uninterrupted period of five successive years of non-use and within a period of three months preceding the submission of the request for declaring the right of protection lapsed, shall be disregarded, if preparations for the start or resumption of the use have been undertaken immediately after the right holder became aware of possible submission of such request.

3. Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply accordingly in the cases referred to in Article 169(7).

4. Loss of a right to use a sign or a symbol, referred to in Article 131(2) incorporated in a trademark shall not constitute a ground for non-making a decision declaring the right of protection for that trademark lapsed, if that sign or symbol ceased to be used in the trademark before a request for the declaration of the right of protection lapsed has been submitted.

In light of this evidence, which were the facts of this case, where a detailed analysis could affect the outcome of the case, it was premature by the court of first instance to rule and to say that, in this case that the genuine use of the mark has not started or has not been resumed, and PPO in this case did not erred in law, because it has analyzed all the evidence gathered. Considering other procedural allegations, the SAC held that administrative courts are not required in justification of its judgments to refer to each decision of Polish or European courts, that were cited by the author of a complaint. Such obligation can not be inferred from any provision of the Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts. However, the administrative court should refer to these judgments, of which the applicant derives important arguments for the assessment of the case. In this case, the Court of first instance did not meet this requirement.

The SAC noted that the doctrine of law and case-law indicate that the trade mark proprietor may use its sign in an altered form in connection to the form of a sign that was registered. This alteration however, cannot apply to elements that decide on the distinctiveness of the sign, or may not lead to changes in represented form as a distinctive whole. See the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 May 2006 case file II GSK 70/06. The SAC confirmed the high degree of freedom to dispose of a trademark by its proprietor, and cited the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 June 2008 case file II GSK 251/08. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 251/08“. The SAC found that the VAC has not sufficiently analyzed of all substantive rules in the context of this case. However, both situation where the violation of substantive law may happen, i.e., violation of substantive law by its incorrect interpretations or inappropriate use, refer only to cases where the facts of the case were established in no uncertain terms. Otherwise, the alleged breach of substantive law is at least premature. This situation took place in this case, because the author of the complainant cassation alleged in the first place the violation of the proceedings by the VAC. The violation of proceedings was based on the refusal by the court of first instance to repeal the decision issued by the Polish Patent Office, in a situation when that PPO did not adequately explain the facts of the case and did not examine in a comprehensive manner the whole of the evidence.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1088/09

February 19th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polish company Śnieżka Invest sp. z o. o. from Świebodzice requested the Polish Patent Office to decided on the lapse of the right of protection for the trademark GOPLANA MICHAŁKI R-139668 owned by Jutrzenka S.A. Śnieżka claimed that the questioned trade was not genuinely used in the period of five successive years after a decision on the grant of a right of protection has been taken. Śnieżka also owns michałki R-72668 trade mark and the company from Świebodzice argued that the market existence of GOPLANA MICHAŁKI sign would interfere its business.

Jutrzenka argued that there existed very serious reasons of non-use – the pending administrative proceedings for invalidation of its trade mark. Jutrzenka claimed that the use of the mark in the course of those proceedings would be irrational and it would expose the company to any future claims of Śnieżka. The PPO in its decision of 1 July 2008 no. Sp. 398/07 held that GOPLANA MICHAŁKI trade mark has lapsed. Jutrzenka filed a complaint. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 June 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 81/09 dismissed it. Jutrzenka filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 December 2010 case file II GSK 1088/09 dismissed the complaint and ruled that the case for invalidation of the trade mark registration does not qualify as an important reason for non-use thereof. The serious reasons should be factual and/or legal obstacles. These may be external events of force majeure nature that are impossible to predict and prevent. All circumstances relating to ordinary business risks, which concerns the current operations of each business cannot be deemes as such obstacles. A legal obstacle,preventing the use of a trade mark may be, for example, an individual administrative act prohibiting the use of the mark.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 452/10

July 19th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2009, the Polish Patent Office declared that the right of protection for REAL trademark owned by real SB-Warenhaus GmbH from Germany, lapsed partially. The German company requested for the suspension of the contested decision. The request stated that the contested decision would cause a negative economic impact for real SB-Warenhaus GmbH, which, through a Polish subsidiary, uses lapsed trade mark continuously since 1997. The German company has made far-reaching financial investments to build market position of REAL trade mark, in Poland – around 10 million PLN. In addition, the public awareness of the brand position, has not only financial backing but also social, because the company built on Polish territory large-area markets, which are operated under the name REAL, therefore, renaming the company and its markets would also affect the 13,500 employees. Given the increasing competition in the market, other competitors, could in good faith (or intentionally) use this trade mark. There was therefore a real risk that, until final completion of this case, the distinctive character of REAL trade mark would be weakened.

R-132135

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 452/10 decided to stay the execution of the questioned decision and ruled that if the decision of the Patent Office has not been suspended, REAL trade mark used by the Polish subsidiary could not be used, and others could exploit the position of this trade mark. The Court also agreed that financial outlays made for the creation and operation of REAL’s supermarkets, were large, and the scale of employment in these supermarkets and the necessary change of the company name and the supermarket, could adversely affect the situation of workers.

See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 451/10“.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 451/10

July 17th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

R-132135

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 451/10 decided to stay the execution of the questioned decision and ruled that if the decision of the Patent Office has not been suspended, REAL trade mark used by the Polish subsidiary could not be used, and others could exploit the position of this trade mark. The Court also agreed that financial outlays made for the creation and operation of REAL’s supermarkets, were large, and the scale of employment in these supermarkets and the necessary change of the company name and the supermarket, could adversely affect the situation of workers.

See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 452/10“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 120/09

December 13th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 September 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1042/08 dismissed a complaint against the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the lapse of the right of protection for APETITO IR-615850 trade mark in part concerning the goods in Class 29. See “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1042/08“. The owner – APETITO AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT – filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgmet of 6 October 2009 case file II GSK 120/09 dismissed the complaint and held that when a person who shows its legitimate interest file a request for the invalidation of a registered trade mark becasue of non-use, the owner of the right of protection for this trade mark has to show the use of the mark in question or the existence of valid reasons justifying non-use. The scope of holder’s duty is defined within the scope of legal interest arising from a standing to file a request for the invalidation.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 774/08

July 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In June 2005, Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A asked the Polish Patent Office to make a decision on the lapse of the right of protection for “3in 1″ R-90234 trade mark owned by “MOKATE” sp. z o.o. from Zory. The request was based on article 28(1) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 1985, published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 1985 No 5, pos. 15, with later amendments.

The right deriving from registration of a trade mark shall expire if the person entitled has not used the mark within a period of three consecutive years in the Republic of Poland.

The request was also based on article 169(1) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo wlasnosci przemyslowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2001 No 49, pos. 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, pos. 1117, with later amendments.

1. The right of protection for a trade mark shall also lapse:
(i) on failure to put to genuine use of the registered trade mark for the goods covered by the registration for a period of five successive years after a decision on the grant of a right of protection has been taken, unless serious reasons of non-use thereof exist,
(…)
2. In the cases referred to in paragraph (1), the Patent Office shall make a decision on the lapse of the right of protection for the trade mark at the request of any party having a legitimate interest therein.

The request was based on non-use of “3 in 1″ trade mark. Mokate filed a motion asking the PPO to reject Nestle’s request. The motion was based on the lack of legitimate interest on Nestle’s side. The PPO agreed with Mokate’s argument. Nestle filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. The VAC in its judgment of 3 December 2007, act signture VI SA/Wa 1036/07 rejected Nestle’s complaint. The company filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC in its judgment of 12 March 2009, act signature II GSK 774/08 held that conditions of legitimate interest are based on two levels — procedural — because it is justifying the initiation of administrative proceedings in a particular matter and “substantive”, as it results from the provisions of the law that apply to certain rights and obligations of a person (legal or natural). Although the substantive law is the source for the legitimate interest but the legal interest as a condition that justfies the initiation of the procedure for declaration on the lapse of the right of protection for the trademark is primarily a category of administrative procedure – one of the principles of this proceedings as to its proper initiation. The cassation complaint was rejected.

The SAC ruled also that it was uncontested that the First Council Directive left Member States free to establish procedural rules. The requirement of legitimate interest included in article 169(2) the IPL only entitles a party to initiate the administrative proceedings on the lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark, but does not guarantee such applicant that the PPO will issue a decision that is favourable to him, because the PPO shall issue a decision on the lapse of the trade mark rights if it finds the fulfilment of the substantial prerequisites to the lapse, and not the infringement of the legitimate interest. Since then the provision of article 169(2) are only applicable only to a right to file a request for a decision on the lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark for the reasons referred to in section 1 of article 169 being the substantial prerequisites, the requirement to demonstrate a legitimate interest can not be understood as an additional substantial prerequisite for deciding on the lapse of trade mark rights. Such assessment is not changed by the fact that, as the court already stated, the legitimate interest is the normative category of the substantive law.

In the Polish administrative law the legitimate interests requirement creates the concept of a proceedings party. This issue has been dealt similarly in the law of industrial property, including a prerequisite to request the Polish Patent Office to take a decision declaring the right of protection for the trade mark.

The legitimate interest prerequisite has two grounds – procedural because it justifies the initiation of the administrative proceedings in a particular case and substantive, because it results from the provisions of substantive law that apply to certain rights and obligations of an entity. Although a source of the legitimate interests lays in the substantive law, the legal interest as a condition requesting the PPO to issue a decision declaring on the lapse of the right of protection for the trade mark lapsed is primarily a category of administrative procedure – one of the principles of this proceeding as to its proper initiation.

The issues on legal interest are both regulated in the procedural law (including the administrative proceedings that apply to trade mark cases) and these are also the normative category of the substantive law. The source of the legal interest is the substantive law. If the source is the substantive law then the Directive should apply. However the SAC consistently refuses to refer this matter to the Court of Justice.

See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 309/07“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 708/08

June 26th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On June 2007 the Polish Patent Office issued decision in which it invalidated the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark Lech-Pol R-132854 (with the priority date of 1998), registered for goods in class 33 and owned by Mariusz Lech Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Uslugowe LECH-POL from Lask. The right of protection was invalidated in part: for alcoholic beverages except for wine. The request was filed by the Polish company Fabryka Wódek POLMOS LANCUT S.A. from Lancut. The company from Lancut proved that it had a legitimate interest to have standing in proceedings before the Polish Patent Office based on the fact that on May 2005 Mariusz Lech filed before the PPO request to invalidate the right of protection for lech wódka R-145285 trade mark.

According to Polmos Lancut’s arguments, Mariusz Lech used the disputed trade mark only for products such as strong fruit wines, not imposing this mark on all other alcoholic beverages in Class 33. Mariusz Lech argued that, since mid-2001, he began efforts to start the production of vodka under the disputed trade mark. As a potential market for these articles he considered the teritory of Ukraine and the Republic of Poland. With this end in view, a design of bottles bearing these trade marks and labels were made. There were also discussions on the distribution of alcohol in Ukraine. However, with regard to the obstacles, the plan was not realized.

The PPO ruled that simply taking the preparatory steps which had no connection with a valid reason that could prevent the use of a trade mark does not constitute the grounds for dismissal of a request for invalidation of the right of protection.

Mariusz Lech filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw but it was rejected in the Court’s judgment of 5 February 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 2019/07. A cassation compalint brought before the Supreme Administrative Court was rejected in a judgment of 16 April 2009, case file II GSK 708/08.

See also previous post entitled “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1042/08” as regards non-use and genuine use issues.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 503/08

May 6th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In case of a request for invalidation of the right of protection to PLANTAGINIS R-105263 trade mark filed by Polish company Gemi from Karczew, the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 November 2008, case file II GSK 503/08 ruled that it is usually assumed that legitimate interest is the normative category of the substantive law and its source is the substantive law. On this basis the party of an administrative proceedings is entitled to request to specify his or her powers and duties or require an administrative court or body to perform an examination of a legal act or acts in order to protect him or her against violations that was made by this legal act or acts and to lead to a situation that it is consistent with the law.

The legitimate interest may also derive from legal norms not only belonging to the administrative law. The confirmation of legitimate interest is always due to the likely connection between the norm of the substantive law and the situation of legal entity to the effect that the act of application of this legal norm (eg, an administrative decision) may affect the legal position of this entity in the field of the substantive law. The SAC also agreed with the opinion of academics that there aren’t any universal definition of a legitimate interest in the field of industrial property law that would include complex situations to justify the submission of the request for invalidation of an exclusive right.

The SAC noted that the case law indicates article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2nd April 1997 as published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) No. 78, pos. 483.

A social market economy, based on the freedom of economic activity, private ownership, and solidarity, dialogue and cooperation between social partners, shall be the basis of the economic system of the Republic of Poland.

The Court also pointed out to article Paragraph 6(1) of the Law on Freedom of Economic Activity (in Polish: ustawa o swobodzie dzialalnosci gospodarczej) corresponding to the content of article 5 of the Act of 19 November 1999 – Law of economic activity (in Polish: Prawo dzialalnosci gospodarczej), Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) No. 101, pos. 1178, as amended.

The assumption, conduct and termination of economic activity shall be free to all on an equal-rights basis, subject to conditions determined in provisions of law.
2. The public administration authority shall neither demand nor make its decision in the matter of the assumption, conduct, or termination of economic activity by an interested party conditional upon satisfaction by this party of additional conditions, including without limitation on the submission of documents or disclosure of information other than that set out in provisions of law.

These are the basis for deriving the legitimate interest for the party seeking for the standing in the proceedings for the lapse or invalidation of a right of protection for a trade mark.

When deriving the legitimate interest from the aforementioned legal regulations in case of the invalidation proceedings of a trade mark it is necessary to demonstrate why and how the right of protection for PLANTAGINIS R-105263 trade mark affect on the legal position of Gemi Company as an entrepreneur. Each entrepreneur has the right to a trademark if the right is not in conflict as to the form, and the period of validity of the previously acquired trade mark right of the same sign. It was necessary to demonstrate that the GEMI’s legitimate interest is relevant to its legal position, because it is current, real, direct and their own (these are the most common elements and features of the legitimate interest), such as verifiability of the legitimate interests and the possibility of obtaining specific benefits. In such cases it concerns the so-called “reflections right” which is creating the legal position of a party not directly, but by a decision of the Polish Patent Office which is “taking back” a right of protection for an earlier trade mark granted to another company.

The SAC dismissed the cassation complaint because it has found that GEMI company did not file its request for invalidation PLANTAGINIS R-105263 trade mark rights in order to obtain the right of protection for the disputed mark for its own. It also did not demonstrate the existence of any obstacles to conduct its business during the sale of goods marked with the disputed trade mark.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1042/08

April 3rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On July 2003 the French company Bongrain S.A. from Viroflay asked the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection for APETITO IR-615850 trade mark. The Polish Patent Office must consider whether there has been a lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark at the request of any party having a legitimate interest. The French company claimed its interest based on trade mark application to register the word trade mark APETITO Z-204328.

The request was based on articles 169(1)(i) 169(2) and 169(6) 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 Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments.

1. The right of protection for a trade mark shall also lapse:
(i) on failure to put to genuine use of the registered trade mark for the goods covered by the registration for a period of five successive years after a decision on the grant of a right of protection has been taken, unless serious reasons of non-use thereof exist,
(…)

6. Where a proceeding for the declaration of the right of protection lapsed is initiated, the burden of proof that the trade mark has been used or that serious reasons for non-use of the trade mark exist shall be on the holder of the right of protection.

The Polish Patent Office decided on the lapse of the right of protection for APETITO IR-615850 trade mark in part concerning the goods in Class 29. The owner – APETITO AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT – filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 September 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1042/08 dismissed the case and ruled that in order to aviod the situation of non-use of a trade mark, the use has to take place in the territory of the Republic of Poland. It has to have an unequivocal nature, as well as being real and serious, and should apply to a registered trade mark for goods and services covered. The actual use of a trade mark to prevent the lapse of the right of protection should consist of affixing the mark to goods and putting of such designated goods on the market within a specified period of time. The period of time is crucial for a revocation of the right protection. The preparatory steps to use the trade mark cannot be equated with the reasons to justify the occurrence of non-use of a trade mark. Taking certain preparatory steps which are without a connection with a valid reason that is preventing the use of a trade mark can not determine a dismissal of a request to decide on the lapse of the right of protection. The judgment is not final yet. APETITO AG filed a cassation complaint. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 120/09“.

Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1962/07

July 6th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company Zakład Gospodarki Komunalnej Organizacja Odzysku Biosystem S.A. requested the Polish Patent Office to take a decision on the lapse of the right of protection for IR-653449 and IR-585713 trade marks registered for goods in the following classes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42. Both trade marks are owned by Der Grüne Punkt Duales System Deutschland GmbH.

IR-653449

In support of its legal interest Biosystem S.A. explained that it is one of more than 30 domestic companies, specializing in recovery of certain categories of waste and like other market participants have the right to use the informational signs. While Rekpol S.A., being the sole licensee of Der Grüne Punkt Duales System Deutschland GmbH trade marks, is sending C&D letters to different businesses, including Biosystem S.A. According to Biosystem the questioned trade marks are spreaded and used among various companies and as the result of negligence of the owner and licensee these signs cannot fullfill the functions to designate the origin of a particular entrepreneur and have degenerated in respect of all goods and services and become a carrier of information in trade that the product bearing the mark shall be recovered.

The PPO decided that the Polish company has no legal interest (but only factual one) in all classes of goods since it produces none of the goods covered by the protection right (and it doesn’t not sell them), but only provides services related to recovery of certain categories of waste.

The PPO only agreed that Biosystem S.A. has shown legal interest in seeking the lapse of the disputed trade mark registration in part, on all services (i.e., services included in classes 35, 36, 39, 40, 42). In this respect, the PPO considered that the interest can be inferred from the principle of freedom of establishment guaranteed by article 20 of the Constitution and Article. 6 of the Act of 2 July 2004 on freedom of economic activity.

Biosystem appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgments of 15 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1959 and VI SA/Wa 1960/07 held that the definition of waste and recycling, shows that waste are the goods. Thus, in the view of the court it was possible to trade in such goods. The court held that it may be that the scope of activities of Biosystem S.A. include those goods. Hence the need to examine the legal interest in the classes of goods. Legal interest shall be tested at the begining of hearings, therefore, the VAC did not address the merits of the dispute. The Court ruled that the repealed decisions of the Polish Patent Office shall not be enforceable.

The VAC decided on other PPO’s decisions on IR-585714 and IR-653450 trade marks and held the same in its judgments of 24 April 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1961/07 and VI SA/Wa 1962/07.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 252/06

June 30th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Imperial Tobacco Limited from the UK requested the Polish Patent Office (PPO) to decide in litigation procedure on the lapse of a right of protection for MOON R-91725 trade mark owned by Polish company Altadis Polska S.A. The British company based its legal interest on the fact the it has applied for recognition on the territory of the Republic of Poland of the protection for the international trademarks with the word element MOON IR-811335, IR-812000, IR-811953 and IR-811992, intended to designate goods in class 34 and desire to use in Poland, their MOON trade marks. Imperial also pointed out that MOON R-91725 trade mark was not used on Polish territory in the way that is required by law.

Altadis demanded the dismissal of the request. Polish company argued that Imperial has no legal interest in seeking the lapse of a right of protection for MOON R-91725 trade mark, because John Player & Sons Limited of Ireland is the company entitled to the international registration of trade marks.

The PPO dismissed the request and PPO’s decision was upheld by the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 March 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 2048/05. The VAC bases its reasoning on the lack of legal interest. Imperial filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 February 2007 case file II GSK 252/06 held that the entrepreneur who plans to place on the domestic market identical or similar goods bearing a sign that is identical or similar to registered but unused trademark, has a legal interest in requesting the PPO for the decision on the lapse of a right of protection for the trade mark because of its non-use by the holder, provided, however, that such entrepreneur will demonstrate that its intention is real and genuine, especially if it’s a manufacturer of such goods and introduces them to a common market under the sign.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 309/07

March 30th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 March 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 1998/06 ruled that the source of legal interest to seek a declaration on the lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark may be general rules of law that create the right of establishment of business activity (article 20 and article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland). However, any person requesting the Patent Office to make a decision on the lapse of the right of protection for the trade mark must prove, on pain of dismissal of such application, that the disputed trade mark limits business activity of an applicant, or it has negative impact the legal situation of the applicant. This case concerned ION R-110244 and ION WEST R-11020 trade marks.

The court deciding this case was aware that divergent views on the subject of legal interests are presented both in the legal doctrine and the case-law. One part of the legal doctrine and practising lawyers believes that a lack of legal interest justyfies the issuance of a refusal based on the formal reasons, and another part’s view is that in this case, the PPO should take the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The court cited the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 7 September 1989, act signature SA/Ka 441/89 and its critical gloss written by Barbara Adamiak, published in OSP 1991/2/33.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 25 January 2008 case file II GSK 309/07 ruled that the request for a referral to the Court of Justice regarding the question whether the article 12(1) of First Directive 89/104/EEC of the Council, of 21 December 1988, to Approximate the Laws of the Member States Relating to Trade Marks allows Member States to introduce into the national law an additional substantial prerequisite regarding the legitimate interest, limiting the class of persons allowed to seek for a declaration on the lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark that was failed to be put to genuine use to those who are able to demonstrate their interest and depriving such possibility the business entities having the actual interest, including economic one, is unfounded.