Archive for: Art. 6 TMA

Trade mark law, case II GSK 269/10

August 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polish company Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcji Lodów “KORAL” Józef Koral Spółka jawna from Limanowa, the owner of the word trade mark RED BLUE Z-277694 requested the Polish Patent Office to decide on the invalidation of the right of protection for the word trade mark RED BULL IR-708694 in part for goods in Class 30. KORAL claimed inter alia that the registration of the questioned trade mark was made in violation of Article 6(1) 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 subsequent amendments, becasue goods in Class 30 are not subject to the activities of the Red Bull GmbH.

6.
(1) A trademark shall be registrable on behalf of a specific enterprise, but only in respect of goods falling within its field of economic activity.

On 15 December 2008, Red Bull informed the PPO that with effect from 5 December 2008, the Company renounced the protection of the questioned trade mark for goods in class 30 on the Polish territory. The PPO dismissed the request and noted that Red Bull GmbH is a limited liability company under the Austrian law. According to the registry of commercial activity, the company uses the Red Bull brand in the course of trade. In the opinion of the PPO, the Austrian law does not require further specification of the scope of the commercial activity of a company. The PPO has indicated that the minimum condition for which the entrepreneur must meet while applying for a trade mark in order to be grated the exclusive rights to that sign, is the intent of use. Such intent may be interpreted from the list of goods and services covered in the application and registration of the trade mark. KORAL filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 26 October 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1263/09 dismissed the complaint and KORAL filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 April 2011 case file II GSK 269/10 dismissed the cassation. The SAC ruled that the Polish legislature adopted the law which implies that a trade mark may be registered if it’s related to the business activity of an entrepreneur and, therefore, that this is not property in itself, which can belong to anyone, but it is an intangible component of the company/enterprise, that serves to distinguis the goods or services from other goods and services of the same kind of other companies. The second of those conditions preclude the possibility of marking other goods than the goods covered by the activities of a company. There is no doubt that the product (or service) that is actually offered in the market by the company, is a commodity, which is the subject of its business. However, a trade mark can (and should) also be used for goods that are not currently offered. Therefore, some problems of interpretation arise in the case of these goods (and services) that can be marketed by the company in the future. The SAC noted that the case law and legal doctrine adopted the view, that commodities which are the subject of a business activity will also be goods or services, what a company intends to introduce to the market in the future. Thus, the need arose to determine the criteria that would allow for the identification of the types of goods that are covered at the time of filing of a trade mark application (and consequently by the registration) by the intention of marking them in the future by that trade mark. Such intention is disclosed by identifying of the company activities in the appropriate register, because it is a public declaration of the entrepreneur on which fields of economic activities it intends to participate, or what kind of goods or services it will be offering on the market.

Categories: Art. 107 §1 APC | Art. 134 IPL | Art. 255 IPL | Art. 256 IPL | Art. 315 IPL | Art. 4 TMA | Art. 6 TMA | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | famous trade marks | homogenity of goods | legal interest | non-use | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | similarity of goods | trade mark invalidation | trademark law.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 368/10

June 10th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated in part the right of protection for 100 R-156995 trade mark that was registered for Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o.o. for goods in class 16 such as posters, albums, almanacs, stationery, blocks, drawing blocks, brochures, magazines, charade journals, prints, forms, newspapers, calendars, calendars with tear loose, filing cards, cards, card-notices, postcards, comics, books, crossword puzzles, stickers, notepads, covers, stationery, bookmarks, drawing kits, notebooks. Technopol filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 7 December 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1677/09. Technopol decided to file a cassation complaint.

R-156995

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 March 2011 case file II GSK 368/10 dismissed the complaint in part. The SAC held that the designation, which in fact is the number 100, is a highly informative sign for magazines and journals containing charades, and, as such may not be the monopolized by one entity that would like to use it for marking crosswords magazines. The Court noted also that adding to a trade mark any image does not yet give the sign a concrete distinctive character.

Categories: Art. 13 TMA | Art. 4 TMA | Art. 6 TMA | Art. 6(1)(b) Directive 89/104 | Art. 7(1) TMA | Art. 7(2) TMA | descriptive character | Directive 89/104/EEC | distinctive character | EU law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | trade mark invalidation | trademark law.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 213/06

February 19th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The German company Berentzen Brennereien GmbH from Haselunnein Germany has requested invalidation of the word trade mark Pushkin R-110616 registered for Belvedere Company in class 33 for alcohol beverages. The request was based on articles 6 and 8(i) 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 subsequent amendments.

(1) A trademark shall be registrable on behalf of a specific enterprise, but only in respect of goods falling within its field of economic activity.
(2) The registration of a trademark for specific goods shall not prevent registration of other trademarks on behalf of the same enterprise in respect of the same or different goods falling within its field of economic activity.
(3) The registration of a trademark for specific goods shall not prevent registration of the same trademark on behalf of the same enterprise in respect of other goods falling within its field of economic activity.

Article 8(i)
A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
(i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;

The German company alleged that the mark has been submitted by entrepreneur who had no licence to operate as an alcohol dealer but it was engaged in exports of alcohol. The disputed trade mark was then transferred to Belvedere company. The German company also claimed that the applicant was acting in bad faith because it was aware of the fact that such a sign exists on the same competitive Western markets. The PPO dismissed the request in its decision of 20 January 2009 case act signature Sp. 213/06. The PPO did not agree that trade mark registration was done against provisions of article 6 because, according to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 September 2004, case file GSK 774/04, the export of alcohol from the country did not require a licence.

Categories: Art. 6 TMA | Art. 8(1) TMA | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Patent Office | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trademark law.