Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 315 IPL

Trade mark law, case II GSK 406/08

October 28th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The MIŚ company has operated on the Polish market since 1956 in the form of an “industrial plant”, but until 1978, it used the name “Wojewódzki Zwiazek Gminnych Spóldzielni Samopomoc Chlopska-Zaklad Wyrobów Cukierniczych Miś” in Oborniki Śląskie. The complex name was changed to “Spóldzielnia Pracy Produkcyjno Handlowa MIŚ” in 1978 and again to “Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIŚ” in 1992.

R-90583

Włodzimierz Miś and Jerzy Miś – “Bracia Miś” (Bear’s brothers) have started their activity in 1989. They use a single word “Miś” (bear) as their company name and produce confectionery since 1993. “Bracia Miś” have applied for the word-figurative trade mark “Mis” in 1992. The Polish Patent Office has granted the protection right in 1995 under the no. R-83022. The Company from Oborniki Slaskie received trade mark protection right for the figurative sign consisting of bear’s head in 1996 under the no. R-90583.

R-83022

Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIS filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection of “Bracia Miś” trade mark. The PPO agreed and invalidated the contested trade mark in 2001 for the first time. The case went for the appeal to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw which annuled the PPO’s decision. The Administrative court pointed that Polish Patent Office did not properly justified its decision and did not consider judgments of two civil courts that previously ruled in case of “Bracia Miś” and Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIŚ as regards similarity of both signs and the use of “Bracia Miś” trade mark as a company name (a short explanation: Polish civil courts decide trade mark infringement cases while administrative courts decide appeals and cassation complaints related to administrative procedure and cases before PPO).

Once again, the PPO invalidated “Bracia Miś” trade mark in 2007. The Office ruled that the registration should not be allowed because it violated personal rights of Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIŚ – the right to a company name – which enjoyed a long tradition and reputation. Again, the case went for an appeal to VAC. Trade mark attorney who was representing “Bracia Miś” presented arguments that their products are only sold in company’s owned shops and there is no risk of consumers confusion. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 22 October 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 921/07 did not follow such arguments so the case went to the Polish Supreme Administrative Court as cassation complaint. The SAC agreed with “Bracia Miś” and held that the PPO did not indicate on which evidences the annullement was based in its decision and that the PPO failed to comply with regulations provided in the Code of Administrative Procedure. The VAC by accepting PPO’s decision has failed to comply with administrative proceedings rules which which in consequence was the reason to invalidate VAC’s judgment.

The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 October 2008 case file II GSK 406/08 is final and binding. It means that the Voivodeship Court has to annul the Polish Patent Office’s decision from 2007 and order the PPO to reconsider the invalidation of “Bracia Mis” trade mark. See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2258/08“.

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 VI SA/Wa 845/05

June 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Valentino filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for Valentino R-137628 trade mark that was registered in classes 35 39 for Orzechowski Wiesław Firma ASTRO from Gdynia. Valentino argued that Astro infringed on the principles of social coexistence, as it sought to use the reputation of the trademarks and trade names owned by Valentino. Granting the right of protection, thus placing on the same field of economic activity a very similar trade mark would threaten the interests of Valentino, and it would be also contrary to the institution of a trade mark.

IR-645346

The PPO dismissed the opposition and ruled that Valentino did not prove the reputation of its trade marks and due to the different classes there is no risk of consumers confusion, however the goods and services are complementary. The PPO noted also that the questioned trade mark differs from these owned by Valentino because elements such as V, Val, or Zone are exposed which makes them the dominant elements in these trade marsk, and they attract the attention of the public, turning their attention from the less visible Valentino word. Valentino filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 November 2005 case file VI SA/Wa 845/05 overturned the decision and held it unenforceable. The VAC ruled that the most visible element in all trade marks in this case is the word Valentino, and verbal elements have the dominant position. The Court also noted that reputation of a trade mark is not dependent on the borders of individual countries or regions. The PPO should examine the evidence submitted by Valentino and it should assess the impact of the existence of a foreign reputed trade mark for its operation in Poland because Valentino could be uninterested of its expansion into the Polish territory, and in the situation if it were interested it could be overtaken by unauthorized entry. The Court agreed also that there was an infringement of the company name.

Trade mark law, II GSK 298/07

March 19th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2000 the PHU Makroterm K. Wąchała & A. Wąchała applied for the registration of the figurative and word mark MAKROTERM in classes 6, 9, 11 and 42. The Makro Cash and Carry company, who applied for the registration of the figurative and word mark MAKRO in classes 1–45 on 22 March 2000, opposed to the registration. Upon finding the observations groundless, the case was then decided by the Polish Patent Office (PPO).

Makro Cash and Carry claimed that the disputable mark imitated the MAKRO mark, used its renown and infringed the company’s right to a company name. Makroterm in turn said there was no likelihood of confusion since the disputed mark did not use the renown of the MAKRO mark because of the fact that Macro Cash and Carry failed to prove the MAKRO mark had been renowned. The Makroterm representative also said the MAKRO mark had not been universally known.

The PPO overruled MAKRO’s opposition. It decided that in assessing similarity one should not focus solely on one element – the “makro” word. It also said the MAKROTERM mark was one word combining the “makro” and “term” words into an original name that moreover had been put in a colourful design. According to the Office both marks brought about different associations in the minds of the relevant public. It decided that the marks themselves differed and did not examine similarity in goods offered by the companies. The Office also pointed out that the provided advertising materials concerned only the MAKRO CASH AND CARRY mark. With regard to the infringement of the right to a company name it decided the name was a compound one so there could not have been any infringement.

Makro Cash and Carry filed an appeal against the decision of the Polish Patent Office. It read that the Office had not assessed the similarity of goods offered by both companies and with identical goods the criteria for assessing similarity of marks are much stricter. Makro Cash and Carry also said the Polish Patent Office assessed only the differences but it should have assessed similarities.

Makroterm in turn underscored that the universal recognition of the MAKRO sign had not been adequately demonstrated and that the mark had been recognized by a half of the relevant public. It also questioned the research commissioned in 2006 by the MAKRO company.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, in a judgment of 22 March 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 1325/06, rejected the appeal. The Court held that the PPO had already compared the marks with regard to all three planes and decided that the marks bore fundamental differences. It decided that the “makro” word was a common one and had little distinctive value. Apart from that it found the “term” word much more distinctive, which together with colourful design of the MAKROTERM mark made both marks different.

MAKRO filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The Supreme Court in the judgment of 15 January 2008, case file II GSK 298/07 fully agreed with the earlier judgement of the Voivodeship Court and the decision of the Polish Patent Office. It also decided there was no similarity between the marks that would lead to a confusion neither on the phonetic, nor conceptual, nor figurative plane. The mark also had not infringed the appellant’s right to the name of his company.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 269/06

October 6th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

By decision of 11 August 2005, the Patent Office refused to grant a right of protection for word-figurative “R-Profit” Z-234207 trade mark applied for by Raiffeisen Bank Polska S.A. for goods in Class 36 such as banking services for small and medium enterprises. The Patent Office concluded after examination proceedings that this sign may not be registered because it is similar to PROFIT R-87400 trade mark, registered for Bank Polska Kasa Opieki SA, with priority of 3 November 1993 for goods in Class 36 such as management of interest bearing money investments in zlotys. The PPO also stated that, in this case, the issue of services could not be challenged, since both signs are designed for the same services to a wide audience, i.e. banking services. The PPO ruled that both signs cannot exist simultaneously in trade without the risk of consumers confusions. In the opinion of the PPO there was no doubt that the trade marks are also similar phonetically and semantically.

Z-234207

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 May 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 542/06 dismissed the complaint filed by Raiffeisen Bank Polska S.A. and noted at the beggining that Article 315(1)(3) of the IPL, expresses the principle that the issue of the registrability of signs that were registered or applied for registration before 22 August 2001, is assessed on the basis of existing regulations. therefore the provisions of the Act of 31 January 1985 on trade marks are the basis for assessing the registrability of R-Profit trade mark, because it was applied for registration on 10 April 2001.

Article 315
1. Rights conferred in respect of inventions, utility models, ornamental designs, topographies of integrated circuits, trademarks and rationalisation projects, existing at the time of entry into force of this Law, shall remain effective. To these rights the previous provisions are applicable, unless the provisions of this Part stipulate otherwise.

2. Legal relationships established prior to the entry into force of this Law shall continue to be governed by the previous provisions.

3. Statutory requirements for the grant of a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration shall be assessed under the provisions effective at a date of filing of an application concerning an invention, a utility model, a trademark or topography of an integrated circuit with the Patent Office. However, the provision of Article 37(2) shall apply to patent and utility model applications pending at the date of entry into force of this Law.

In the opinion of the VAC that this case involved the same type of services. The Court agreed with the analysis of the list of services performed by the PPO that there exists homogeneity of services between in both lists of goods. In the opinion of the Court, the PPO has properly analyzed the similarity of “R-Profit” and opposing “Profit” signs. Both signs should be compared in aural conceptual and phonetic aspects, bearing in mind that “R-Profit” is a word-figurative trade mark. According to the VAC, even though this case concenrs word and word-figurative trade marks, one may say that there exists graphic similarity, as “R-Profit” and “Profit” differ only by the letter “R” and the core of the two characters – “Profit” is identical. The VAC ruled that the argument that services in question have different distribution channels does not preclude the likelihood of confusion, because an average consumer may think that the service is derived from an entity that combines the organizational relationship and legal rights with the owner of “Profit” trade mark.

Raiffeisen Bank Polska S.A. filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 February 2007 case file II GSK 269/06 dissmised the case. The SAC held that the comparison of signs should be based on the general, overall impression, which compared trade marks have on the recipient, and thus if the dominant element in both signs are their common elements, there is a similarity between trade marks that is posing a risk of consumers confusion.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 296/06

September 30th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

By its decision of 15 July 2003, the Polish Patent Office has granted a right of protection for FEMISTEN R-146192 trade mark for goods in Class 5 such as pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical preparations. On 28 July 2004, the Patent Office received a notice of opposition, filed by Solvay Pharmaceuticals B.V. from Netherlands, and it based its oppsition on FEMOSTON IR-624469 trade mark also registered for goods in Class 5. The Dutch company argued that the FEMISTEN is confusingly similar to FEMOSTON both in the phonetic, and aural aspects, and both signs are meant to designate the same kind of goods. The owner of the registration requested the PPO to dismiss the case.

The PPO in its decision of 16 November 2005 dismissed the application for the invalidation of the right of protection for FEMISTEN trade mark. In support of the decision the PPO stated that in its opinion there is no similarity of the signs and it likely will not mislead consumers as to the origin of goods. Both signs were considered as a whole as fanciful. The component FEMI in FEMISTEN trade mark indicates that the product is designed for women. There was some similarity in structure and wording of these signs (the two characters have the same number of letters and syllables, and the difference comes down to differences of vowels in these assays), but in the assertion of the PPO it would not mislead the recipients as to the origin of the goods from a particular entrepreneur. FEMOSTON is a trade mark meant for designation of pharmaceutical preparations used in hormone therapy, which are bought only on prescription, so these goods are available to the customer through doctors and pharmacists. Products bearing FEMISTEN are the skin-care goods, available without a prescription and not associated with hormone therapy. The buyers of pharmaceutical products are adults, which, thoughtfully make their choice by paying attention.

Solvay filed a complaint. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 25 May 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 537/06 dissmied the complaint and ruled that the collected evidence made it clear, that the proprietor of FEMISTEN trade mark at the moment of filing a request for invalidation did not market the goods covered by the disputed mark, but according to the declaration of the holder, Glaxo intended to bring to the market skin care preparations in the form of ointments and gels available without prescription. The Court considered the findings of the Patent Office in this regard as correct. The legal doctrine and the case law established already the method of examining of the homogenity of goods. It should be assessed according to the type of the goods, purpose of the goods and the conditions of their sale, and the mere fact of belonging to a common class of goods is not a decisive argument for the recognition of the goods as belonging to the same kind. The Court ageed with the comparison of these signs that was made by the PPO and noted that the similarity of signs, as referred to in Article 9(1), point 1 of the TMA, is not an independent category, but it serves a purpose, namely the elimination by refusing to register the mark, which would under normal conditions of economic activity to deceive consumers as to the origin of goods. Evaluation of the similarity of the marks must be made at the same time from the perspective of the average consumer of the goods.

Solvay Pharmaceuticals B.V. Decided to file a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court i its judgment of 13 March 2007, case file II GSK 295/06 ruled that the issue of similarity of trade marks has both the factual and legal aspects, and that the administrative court can conduct its own assessment of the similarity criteria used by the Polish Patent Office. See “Trade mark law, case file II GSK 36/05“.

The SAC noted that according to settled case-law, the similarity of trade marks are resolved on the basis of risk of confusion as to the origin of goods. And the risk of confusion as to the origin of goods consists of similarity of goods and similarity of signs. See “Trade mark law, case file II SA 2778/01“.

Therefore, an essential element of the facts established for purposes of comparison of trade marks in terms of their similarity is to determine what goods bear these marks. Such a requirement does not occur when the same signs lack of similarities that may lead to a risk of confusion as to the origin of goods. This situation occurs in particular when the word trade marks compared in the visual and aural aspect show significant differences, so that mistakes are impossible for the consumer regardless of the way of purchasing terms and conditions of sale. The SAC noted that for unexplained reasons, it was adopted as the basis for comparisons of goods, by how they will be used, based only on arguments provided by Glaxo, where it was not disputed that when the decision was contested before the VAC, no commodity was marked with the questioned sign. It was also important to consider whether the observed similarity in the spelling of the two signs may lead to the risk of confusion. For these reasons, the SAC reversed the contested judgment and referred the case to the VAC for further re-examination.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 247/06

August 11th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1705/05“. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 February 2007, case file II GSK 247/06, dismissed a cassation complaint brought by the K. Company. This judgment concerned TERRAVITA trade mark R-142204.

R-142204

The Court ruled that it cannot be assumed that in case of word-graphic signs, a word element of such sign has a decisive character because it is easy to remember and to communicate. While assessing the similarity of signs one has to take into the consideration a general impression which compared signs exert on the consumer. I’m still not so certain if this trade mark (trapezoid box/packaging for a bar of chocolate with characteristic rectangle “window” at the front which allows the consumer to see the texture of the chocolate) should be perceived as “trade dress” as it was discussed by the SCOTUS in its judgment in the case Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). Maybe it is a three-dimensional sign/trade mark (3D).

Trade mark law, case II GSK 105/06

December 10th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 September 2006 case file II GSK 105/06 held that in the case of the collision of two registered word trade marks, which one is single word sign and the latter complex sign, the mere similiarity of one single word of a complex trade mark cannot be used as an argument to request the invalidation of a trade mark registered with the later priority if the other words used in this trade mare make it distinctive enough under normal conditions of trade.

This case concerned EXTASE EXOTIC NATURE IR-671573 trade mark owned by Mäurer + Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG and the request fot the invalidation of the right of protection filed by Koninklijke Sanders B.V., the owner of EXTAZA R-57075 trade mark.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1705/06

October 17th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 November 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 1705/06, published in LEX under the no. 299601, by referring directly to the wording of the IPL, ruled that the exemption from the registration of trade marks classified as descriptive does not mean that every trade mark that consist of elements that describe the product, its qualities or characteristics, is deprived the registrability. Only signs which may serve in trade to provide information about the characteristics of the goods should be recognized as descriptive trade marks under the TMA.

R-155237

This case concerned the request for the invalidation of the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark “CIEPŁA PODŁOGA” R-155237 registered for goods in Class 11 such as heating mats, owned by “ELEKTRA” Włodzimierz Nyc, Witold Nyc Spółka Jawna.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 377/05

October 6th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark OCETIX R-135047 based on provisions of Article 8(2) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with later amendments. The request was filed by the competitior of Szczęsna Ewa DELTA L.T.D, who claimed its prior rights to the company name (firm).

Article 8
A trademark shall not be registrable if:
1) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;
2) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties;

Ewa Szczęsna filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 July 2005, case file VI SA/Wa 67/05 dissmissed the case. The VAC agreed with the PPO that the registration of the word-figurative trade mark OCETIX constituted the infringement of the firm of the competitor of Ewa Szczęsna, who established its undertaking in 1991. The Court ruled that the dominant element is the word OCETIX, it attracts the attention and has the distinctive character, while other elements are informative and are indicating the scope of the activities of Szczęsna Ewa DELTA L.T.D.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 April 2006, case file II GSK 377/05 upheld the contested judgment and ruled that in accordance with Article 164 of the IPL, the right of protection for a trade mark may be invalidated at the request of any person who has legitimate interest. Article 315(3) of the IPL provides the principle according to which the registrability of signs registered or applied for the registration before 22 August 2001, is assessed on the basis of existing regulations. Thus, the law underlying the assessment of trade mark protection for OCETIX that was applied for the registration on 14 October 1998 are the provisions of the TMA.

R-135047

The SAC repeated that the right of protection for a trade mark is deemed as an exclusive, absolute, transferable and heritable property right. It’s a sign intended to distinguish the goods of one undertaking from those of the same type from another entrepreneur. A trade mark performs a distinctive, warranty and advertising functions. The Court noted also that in the course of trade, the category of distinctive signs, in addition to trade marks, are also brands/signs that are distinguishing of companies. The firm is one of such signs. It is the name under a which the registered merchant (general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, joint stock company) operates its undertaking. The firm of an undertaking distinguishes a given undertaking from other undertakings, in the same and/or other object/way of business. See R. Skubisz, Prawo znaków towarowych. Komentarz (in English: Trade mark law. Commentary), Warszawa 1997, p. 13 and 17.

The Court also ruled that the Paris Convention of 20 March 1883 on the Protection of Industrial Property published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 1975, No. 9, item. 51 and 52), introduced to the Polish law the term of the trade name, which previously was not used in the Polish legislation. The term collectively covers all the markings of companies enjoyed by the persons mentioned in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The SAC agreed that Article 8 of the Convention does not constitute an independent basis to protect the trade name of the entrepreneur, because it does not specify conditions for such protection and does not indicate what claims should be used in the case of infringement of the rights to the company name. However, this affect the domestic law. See also “Trade mark law, case II SA 2914/01“. The Court ruled that the firm is protected under the Article 37 Code of Commerce (it was repealed by the Code of Commercial Companies later on) and Article 43 of the Civil Code. According to Article 37 of the Code of Commerce, the protection of the firm arises upon its entry into the commercial register, and will expire on the date a court order to withdraw its registration from the register comes into force. The infringement of the firm occurs if there is unlawful use by unauthorized person of a sign which does not distinguish definitively from the firm in a given locality (Article 37 in connection with Article. 35 of the Code of Commerce). Pursuant to Article 43 of the Civil Code, the firm is subject to the protection provided for personal rights/interests (Articles 23 and 24 kc). This protection arises from the date of the first use of a firm in business.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 64/06

August 10th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

IMPERIAL TOBACCO POLSKA Spółka Akcyjna the owner of “M MOCNE” R-68755 trade mark filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for “AS MOCNY t” R-139925 registered for Zakłady Tytoniowe w Lublinie Spółka Akcyjna.

R-139925

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 25 May 2006 case file II GSK 64/06 held that the word “mocne” (in English: strong) itself that is used as an indication of cigarettes, has not sufficient distinctive chracter as a trade mark. It may appear as part of a trade mark, but on a distinctive characteristic of a trade mark, which includes the word “mocne”, will decide other words or images and the word “mocne” will remain purely informational sign that could not become distinctive through use as a trade mark, even in a long term.

R-68755

The SAC held that all manufacturers of cigarettes have the right to use purely informational sign to indicate the quality of cigarettes sold.

Trade mark law, case II SA 2971/01

April 28th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 3 MArch 2002 case file II SA 2971/01 held that the allegation of illegality, which is being a prerequisite for inadmissibility of trade mark registration, does not only concern a trade mark itself. This issue has already been explained by legal commentators, who argued that it is not only a conflict with the law or rules of social coexistence of the trade mark itself (its content), but also the unlawful use of the trade mark, i.e., certain actions and intentions of the person who applied for the trade mark registration. See R. Skubisz, Prawo znaków towarowych. Komentarz (in English: Trade mark law. Commentary), Warszawa 1997, pp. 74-75.

This understanding of the registration of a trade mark violated the principles of social coexistence. The circumstances of the disputed case have indicated that the party who filed a complaint against the decision of the Polish Patent Office in which the right of protection was invalidated, was acting in bad faith when it applied for the registration. This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of BELET R-109473 trade mark registered for Belet-Polska Spółka z o.o. from Poznań.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 349/05

March 23rd, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

Imperial Tobacco requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for “KIERY A K D mocne” R-131390 registered for GALLAHER POLSKA Sp.z o.o., for goods in Class 34 such as cigarettes.

R-131390

Imperial Tobacco is the owner of the right of protection for “M mocne” R-68755 trade mark registered for goods in Clss 34 such as cigarettes. The PPO dismissed the request and explained that the Trade Marks Act contains no provisions on the so-called disclamation rule which is based on identifying which elements that are part of a registered trade mark should not be protected and deemed as informational sings/elements. The word “mocne” (in English: “strong”) refers to the characteristics (properties) of cigarettes, which is associated with the fact that strong cigarette contains more tar and nicotine than light cigarette. The M-Mocne brand due to the presence in the market for several decades acquired the status of well-known trade mark among smokers, which according to the assesment of the Polish Patent Office does not change the fact that “mocne” sign is deemed as the informational term. Imperial Tobacco filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative court in warsaw in its judgment of 20 January 2005 case file VI SA/Wa 333/04 agreed with the PPO and dismissed the complaint. The VAC held that it is wrong assumption that the use of the registered word-figurative trade mark “M mocne”, resulted in obtaining the status of well-known trade mark of one of its elements, i.e. “mocne” word. Imperial Tobacco filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 26 January 2006 case file II GSK 349/05 held that the word “mocne” lacks sufficient distinctiveness. Therefore, the right to use this term (as well as “lekkie”) have all manufacturers of tobacco/cigarettes. This does not affect the personal or property rights, because the word is not property. Moreover, the Court noted the term “mocne” can never acquire distinctive character and all the time should be considered as an informational indication.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 167/06

March 11th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 February 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 1946/05 held that the term mentioned in article 31 of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with later amendments, is a term of substantive law and shall not be shortened or extended.

Article 31
The request for annulment of a right deriving from registration of a trademark may be filed within five years of the date of registration. After the expiry of that period, such request may only be filed in respect of an owner who has obtained registration in bad faith.

The VAC also ruled that bad faith mentioned in article 31 of the TMA, cannot be treated extensively in relation to all grounds for invalidation of the registration, because this would undermine the sense of the institutions of mutability of the registration. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 December 2006 case file II GSK 167/06 dismissed the cassation complaint. This case concerned DELIC-POL R-81280 trade mark.

Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1482/04

August 11th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 3 August 2005, case file VI SA/Wa 1482/04 held that a single colour is not able by its nature to independently distinguish goods of individual entrepreneurs. But, even if a single colour is devoid of any distinctive character according to article 3(1)(b) of the First Directive, it may acquire such a distinctive character in relation to goods by use of such coulour. This factor should be considered when assessing the registerability of a single coulour as a trademark.

Z-206238

This judgment concerned separate Color RED Pantone 485 C applied for by Firma Cukiernicza SOLIDARNOŚĆ – rok założenia 1952 Spółka z o. o. from Lublin for goods in class 30 such as confectionery, chocolate confectionery, sweets.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1514/04

August 11th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 28 July 2005 case file VI SA/Wa 1514/04 held that the invalidation of a right of protection for a trade mark serves as a correction of an error that was made by granting such right. The only condition for the invalidation is the failure to comply with statutory requirements that are required for the grant of such right. The right of protection applies to the entire trade mark as it was provided in the application, and subjected to registration. The law does not protect a part of a word trade mark, but covers the whole sign and protect it, in such form, in which the trade mar was applied for and registered. This case concerned DELITKI R-94582 trade mark.