Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 9(1)(i) TMA

Procedural law, case VI SA/Wa 1239/11

August 7th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 1 March 1994, the company France-Euro Agro applied to the Polish Patent Office for the registration of the word trade mark SOBIESKI Z-130304 for goods in Class 33 such as alcoholic beverages except beer. In its decision of March 1997, the PPO refused to register the applied trade mark because of the similarity with the word-figurative trade mark A SOBIESKI POLISH VODKA R-85456 that was registered with the earlier priority for the same goods in Class 33. This trade mark is currently owned by BELVEDERE S.A. France-Euro Agro withdrew its request for re-examination of the case. However, on December 2005, BELVEDERE requested the PPO to repeal the refusal based on the provisions of Article 154 § 1 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.

A final decision, on the basis of which none of the parties acquired any rights, may be at any time repealed or amended by the public administration authority which issued the decision or by the authority of higher level if it is justified by the public interest or fair interest of the party.

The Company noted that the risk of misleading potential consumers has been eliminated as the owner of both trade marks is now the same entity. BELVEDERE argued also that the PPO does not respect the constitutional rule of law and equal treatment of entities in the application of law, because it has registered three word-figurative trade marks Jan III Sobieski SJ for BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO POLSKA TRADING Sp. z o.o., despite the existence of the earlier right of protection for the trade mark A SOBIESKI POLISH VODKA R-85456. The PPO refused to repeal the decision of 1997. The PPO emphasized that decisions taken in such proceedings are discretionary, which means that the PPO examines, whether in the particular situation, the public interest or the fair interests of a party is in favor of the repeal of the final decision. The requirements of public interest or the interests of the parties must be assessed on an individual case and must receive individualized content, resulting from the factual and legal issues. The interest of the party should be “fair” within the objective meaning i.e. it has to be justified by circumstances of the case and accepted under applicable law, also from the standpoint of public interest. According to Polish legal doctrine, the term “public interest” is not defined by the law, and the content of this concept is given by the adjudicating body. The scope of the discretion of the administrative body during the recognition of such issues is limited, for instance by the existence of general principles of administrative proceedings, such as the public interest and fair interest of citizens. The fair interests of citizens is not only deemed as the interest of parties involved in this particular case, but also the interests of other parties to the proceedings before the Patent Office, in this case those who have applied for trade marks after the refusal of March 1997. By withdrawing the request for re-examination of the matter, France-Euro Agro waived its right to appeal, which led to the ultimate end of the proceedings and allowed other entities to apply for trade mark protection. BELVEDERE filed a complaint against this decision.

R-85456

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 7 December 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1239/11 dismissed it and held that the proceedings to repeal the final decision should not be regarded as a retrial of the case. The Court held that both the institution of proceedings de novo, as well as the repeal of the final decision, are procedures used to verify the faulty decisions, that allows for setting the decision aside, in the situations specified by law, despite its finality. Given the exceptional nature of these procedures, they cannot be abused by a broad interpretation of the conditions of admissibility of their application. The overriding principle is to guarantee the sustainability of the final administrative decision. The Court agreed with the PPO that BELVEDERE could file requests for the invalidation of the rights of protection for trade marks JAN III SOBIESKI JS.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2041/11

February 15th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Sfinks Polska S.A. requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the rights of protection for word-figurative trade mark CLEOPATRA R-153234 owned by Restauracja CLEOPATRA Bachar Aziz from Lublin. Sfinks Polska owns earlier registered word-figurative trade mark SPHINX R-105162.

R-153234

Sfinks claimed that the trade mark CLEOPATRA R-153234 is similar to its trade mark and argued that it has legal interest in this proceedings as there is a possibility of misleading customers based on the similarity of trade marks. This could be particularly applicable considering the fact that SPHINX trade mark is already known on the market and, therefore, it has a stronger distinctive ability. Sfinks also argued that Bachar Aziz filed its trade mark in bad faith with an intent to use the reputation of Sfinks’ trade marks by suggesting a common origin from a single entity.

R-105162

The Polish Patent Office dismissed the request and decided that the trade marks, in this case, are different in all aspects. Sfinks Polska S.A. filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 December 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 112/11 dismissed it. The Court held that the PPO correctly decided that there are visible differences in both signs. The VAC also ruled that the application for a trade in bad faith may occur in a situation in which the applicant is linked with the owner of the earlier sign with a special relationship of trust resulting, for example, from cooperation contracts or agreements. The trade mark can be filed in bad faith in order to acquire a financial extortion from the owner of an earlier sign, or to gain control of that entity, or to force the conclusion of the license agreement, etc. The trade mark can be also filed in bad faith with the intention to block the use of the prior sign or in order to acquire of the market position of the holder of the earlier mark. However, the allegation of bad faith trade mark application has not been proven by Sfinks Polska S.A.

See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 112/11“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 746/10

September 2nd, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of the story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1988/09“. Kraft Foods Polska filed a cassation complaint.

R-91506

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 July 2011 case file II GSK 746/10 dismissed the complaint and held that the reputation of the trade mark and homogenity goods bearing the signs at issue – even if they could be taken into account while assessing the likelihood of confusion – cannot challenge the established view that there is the lack of similarity between these trade marks. The Court decided that trade marks that were subject to the opposition proceedings do not contain a common element being the same surname, because the meaning of the POLO word in these trade marks is different.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 206/06

April 25th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 16 July 1996, the Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the figurative trade mark DVORAK IR-639197. On 27 August 2003, the PPO upheld its decision and ruled that the sign in question is similar to two figurative trade marks R-79913 and R-80064 that were registered with an earlier priority for POLMOS S.A., and it violates the rights of third party, by using elements that are incorporated in earlier registered industrial designs Rp-1 and Rp-2 that are also owned by POLMOS.

IR-0639197

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 January 2007 case file II GSK 206/06 held that the registration of a trade mark whose description largely overlaps with the description of the industrial design that was previously registered to another company, without its permission, is a violation of the rights from the registration of industrial designs and meet the grounds for refusal of registration of the mark because it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 259/10

April 7th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Mariusz Lech Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Uslugowe LECH-POL from Lask requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the word trade mark “lech wódka” R-145285 registered for Fabryka Wódek POLMOS ŁAŃCUT S.A. for goods in class 33 such as alcoholic beverages: vodka. Mariusz Lech argued that the questioned trade mark is confusingly similar to his word-figurative trade mark LECH-POL R-132854 and the word trade mark “mariusz lech” R-113305, both registered for good in class 33 such as alcoholic beverages.

The PPO dismissed the request and noted that Mr Lech’s trade mark were not genuinely used for all goods. In 2007 the PPO decided on the lapse of the protection rights for both trade marks in all goods except wines, this cases went through all instances. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 708/08“. Therefore, the compared goods are different due to existing specialization in the alcohol industry and the awareness of that specialization among potential customers is also important, because the average buyer is aware that the vodka manufacturer does not produce wine, and vice versa. These trade marks may exist on the market without collision. Mariusz Lech filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 October 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1050/09. LECH-POL decided to file a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 February 2011 case file II GSK 259/10 dismissed it. The SAC ruled that the conditions of production of wines and vodka are different. The packagings and sealing of such goods differs and there are different conditions of sale of such products. Vodka in not sold in the wineries, and in case when both types of goods are in a shop, (usually displayed on different shelves in malls), their location is clearly separable. The development of shopping centers and various self-service shops of retail chains, makes the criterion of sales conditions less important when it is used for assessing the similarity of the goods. The Court noted that vodka and wine, because of varying alcohol content, must be treated as different types of alcoholic beverages, which is also reflected in the provisions the Polish Act on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism of 26 October 1982 and the permits that are granted under this Act for trade and service of alcoholic beverages are issued separately for each kind of beverage from a separate pool of permissions. The Court also ruled that the incidental possibility that the producer of wines and spirits is the same entity does not lead to the conclusion that these beverages are of one type.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 650/10

March 1st, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 Demceber 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 650/10 acknowledged the rule that the infringement of the company name as a condition to invalidate the registration of a trade mark under the old Polish Trade Mark law is not forejudged by registration of an identical or similar mark by another company. The VAC repeated that the exclusive rights to the company name are not an absolute. The limits have the territorial and objective nature and they concern the actual actvity of an entity that is using the name in question. Only within these limits the collision between identical or similar company name and trademark may occur. So if the scope of business activities of an entitled to the company name and the holder of the registration of the trade mark differs, there is no risk of consumers confusion as to the identity of companies or for example, a proprietor of the later trade mark is not using the reputation associated with an earlier identical or similar company name, it’s hard to say that there is the collision of these two rights, and consequently an infringement of an earlier right to the company name. This judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 785/10

January 4th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Unilever N.V., the owner of the word trade mark SOLERO IR-0622723 and the word-figurative trade mark SOLERO IR-0628636, has requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the trade mark SOLEY R-129356 owned by the Polish company Maria Ziębińska, Stanisław Ziębiński “ICE MASTRY” sp. j. from Czaniec. Unilever claimed that the questioned sign is similar to its earlier registered well-known trade marks and that the Polish company acted in bad faith while applying for the right of protection because in 1997-2001, Unilever and ICE MASTRY were involved in two civil suits (case files V GC 252/97 and V GC 217/98) that have ended in a settlement in which the Polish company commited to discontinue use of the signs SOLER, Soller and SOLLEI. The PPO invalidated the right of protection. ICE MASTRY filed a complaint against this decision.

IR-0628636

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 785/10 held that the date of application for registration under Article 11 of the old Polish Act of 31 January 1985 on Trade Marks – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments, determines the priority of the right of protection associated with the applied sign (prior tempore potior jure). These provisions still apply in cases where the trade mark has been applied for registration when the old Act was in force. Thus, by this date all subjective and objective issues related to the right applied for protection must also be assessed, in particular,and whether the applicant has the right to the sign.

Article 11.
Subject to Article 12, priority for obtaining the right deriving from registration of a trademark shall be determined on the basis of its regular filing for registration with the Patent Office.

The Court also noted that the TMA, as well as the new Polish Act on Industrial Property Law, does not include a provision that would regulate differently the question of the trade mark application, in relation to its subjective and objective elements and that would take into account as authoritative another, later, point in time. Moreover,the adoption at of a later date to assess the qualifications of the applicant, not only would provide an option for revalidation of trade mark applications that were filed in contradiction with the law, or principles of social coexistence (in bad faith), but may also violate other laws. The filing date of an application for the registration of a trade mark should be taken into account when assessing whether the applicant has acted in bad faith, not the date of trade mark registration. The judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 619/09

December 24th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 4 November 2010 case file II GSK 619/09 ruled that weak distinctive characteristics of trade marks at issue, obviously did not justify, the infringement of these rights. Nevertheless, the proprietor of the mark mark with weak distinctive characteristics, and this is due to the reduction in this sign to presence of informational elements, has to tolerate the existence of a competitive trade marks, containing similar elements that have informational nature. The limit of that tolerance is the similarity of opposing signs, if it could mislead the purchaser of the goods.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 601/10

December 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company Producent Okien i Drzwi z PVC “OKLAND” Joanna Wilk i Wojciech Wilk Spółka Jawna from Kostomłoty Pierwsze filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for a word-figurative trade mark Okland R-154904 owned by OKLAND Spółka z o.o. from Rokitki, in regard to the goods in Class 19, wooden windows. The company from Kostomłoty Pierwsze claimed it operates since 1 June 1997. Its business activities include the production of windows and doors of PVC in the four southern voivodeships. The company argued that the simultaneous use of the OKLAND sign in its company name and as a trade mark registered for a different entrepreneur may increase the risk of misleading the public, which includes in particular the risk of association between signs. The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection. Okland from Rokitki filed a complaint against this decision.

R-154904

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 31 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 601/10 held that the registration of a trade mark that is identical or similar to a company name of another entrepreneur does not determine, however the infringement of the rights to the company name (the firm). The exclusive rights to the company name are not absolute. The limits of these rights are set by the coverage (territorial and objective) of the actual activity of a given company. The collision between identical or similar signs i.e. a company name and a trademark, may occur only within these limits. The judgment is not yet final.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2038/09

July 14th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polish company Przedsiębiorstwo POLMOS Białystok Spółka Akcyjna, the owner of word-figurative and 3D trade mark “POLMOS ŻUBRÓWKA BISON BRAND VODKA” R-62081 and 3D trade mark R-85811, filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection to word-figurative and 3D trade mark “VODKA Herbe de Pologne” R-155144, registered for BELVEDERE S.A.

R-62081

POLMOS argued, inter alia, that there is a significant visual similarity between trade marks at issue. Its bottle has a blade of grass, which is very dominant and attracts the attention of the average consumer. Such assessment cannot be undermined by the fact that there are few blades of grass in the bottle representing the questioned trade mark. POLMOS argued that the registration of “VODKA Herbe de Pologne” threatens the reputation of its trade marks, and emphasized the role of grass in the bottle as a motif indicating the origin of the product. POLMOS added that the purpose of BELVEDERE’s actions was the parasitic use of the reputation of earlier trade marks owned by POLMOS.

In the opinion of the Polish Patent Office (PPO) these trade marks were visually dissimilar because of different bottle shape, color, the presence of a label in the contested mark and the lack of labels in the opposed one, number and appearance of components in liquid. These signs were incomparable in the phonetic/aural aspect, so they were also dissimilar, as the opposed trade mark lacks lettering. In the conceptual aspect the questioned trade mark contains a bunch of herbs inside the bottle and the word “herbe” which indicates that the vodka is herbal, and the opposed sign, contains a longitudinal component, but this element in general is not like weed-grass. Consequently, due to lack of similarity the PPO held that the opposition is unfounded. POLMOS filed a complaint.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2038/09 held that in the case of trade mark reputation, a sign has to be examined as a whole, as the right of protection was granted for such a designation. It can not be allowed to examine every element of the sign separately, in isolation from the whole trade mark.

R-155144

The Court also ruled that the similarity of signs is a prerequisite for examining whether in a particular situation there was infringement of the reputation of an earlier mark. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 207/07“. The VAC held that the absence of the similarity of signs, which also includes the possibility of their association, is the argument that the presence on the market of goods bearing the sign at issue will not affect in any way the alleged reputation and distinctive character of POLMOS’ trade marks.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 344/09

April 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of the history described in the post entitled “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1388/07“.

The Polish Patent Office (PPO) and the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) ruled that EAU DE TOKYO trade mark is totally dissimilar to KENZO or to L’eau par Kenzo trade marks. The mere fact of the use of the word eau did not predict similarity of questioned signs, because the word as part of the expression of eau de toilette, in relation to cosmetics does not have any distinctive character. The PPO and the VAC did not agree with arguments that MGT Parfum Création wanted to use the reputation that was understood as the good name of KENZO.

According to the PPO and the VAC, the use of packaging that is confusingly similar to the packaging used by KENZO could only give rise to claims of delict of unfair competition which is decided in the civil proceedings. The very fact of any dishonest conduct of the holder of the disputed registration cannot be interpreted that the trade mark application has been made in bad faith. Even if the court agreed that events which took place in 2006, i.e. MGT actions based on producing EAU DE TOKYO packaging that looked alike L’eau par Kenzo perfumes, and advertising of its products with “the type of Kenzo perfume” slogan, could raise doubts about compliance of such actions with the rules of fair competition, but these were not sufficient facts to consider that in 2000, MGT had the intention to act dishonestly – in bad faith.

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) in a judgment of 26 January 2010,case file II GSK 344/09, ruled that the PPO has properly established and the VAC correctly agreed to facts, that at the time of application for the protection right for EAU DE TOKYO R-153843 trade mark, the bad faith could not be attributed to MGT Parfum Création.

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

April 15th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

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

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

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

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

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1074/06

March 16th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

I was so fascinated with the use of the law of prägnanz by the Polish court that I decided to look for something more. I was very surprised with my discovery.

On 24 October 2004, Diesel Company, seated in Molvena, Italy filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to DSL R-148054 trade mark. According to Diesel S.p.A., DSL R-148054 trade mark was similar to DIESEL R-73457 and DIESEL IR-608499 trade marks. The Polish Patent Office in a decision of 9 January 2006, no. Sp.88/05, rejected the opposition. Diesel Company filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The VAC in judgment of 16 November 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1074/06, said the following.

It should be noted that one can manipulate the external context, and by influencing the human experience, one can manipulate the internal context. The law of proximity states that elements close to each other compared with other, more distant elements form the figure. The law of similarity based on the law of proximity in relation to similar elements, indicates that human perception can give rise to a new separate figures, and a new association. Next, the law of closure indicates that the perceptual system adds the missing elements and closes the form of incomplete figures. It should be noted that the human being creates the perceived reality based on the interaction of knowledge that flows from the various branches and experience, with received stimuli. So it may be, in this case. Human knowledge derived from other branches of science may “complete” the lack in the designation and close this sign. Thus, the internal context may allow for the law of closure, i.e. for the full reading of the meaning of the word. In turn, the law of symmetry with the use of the simplicity of perception of an object can lead to the fact that elements close to each other, form a mild integrity and the independent shape.

R-148054

In this case, the VAC correctly quoted its source. These are excerpts from A. Falkowski, T. Tyszka Psychologia zachowań konsumenckich, (in English: Psychology of Consumer Behavior), Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Pedagogiczne, pp. 24-26.

Procedural law, case VI SA/Wa 2094/06

February 27th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company BI-ES sp. z o.o., the owner of the word-figurative trade mark BI-ES R-137322, requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the word trade mark BI-KOR R-151731 registered for BIKOR Elżbieta Korbutt. for goods in Class 3 such as cosmetics, in Class 5 such as pharmaceutical preparations for cosmetic purposes, and in Class 41 for services such as organizing and conducting cosmetic and make-up exhibition for contests and educational purposes.

R-137322

BI-ES noted that its trade mark was registered with the earlier priority for the wide spectrum of goods in Class 3 such as perfumery products, perfumes, toilet waters, perfumed sprays, colognes, essential oils and others. The Company claimed that both trade marks are very similar and BIKOR used the idea to separate of the first syllable BI from the second segment with a dash.

BIKOR argued that its sign was present on the marker much earlier than BI-ES. This sign has been applied to the Polish Patent Office in March 1995, four years before the trade mark BI-ES, but this application failed due to temporary financial difficulties.

The Polish Patent Office dismissed the request and ruled that both trade marks differ in all three aspects. The PPO noted that it would be hard to prove that there was imitation on the notation of both signs, becasue there were many registrations of marks with a dash. BI-ES filed a complaint against this decision. The Company argued that BIKOR was not represented properly, becasue the PoA has not been signed by Elżbieta Korbutt. The signature was partially illegible. Admission of a case where the party was represented by a patent attorney without proper PoA is a flagrant violation of the procedural rules and the decision resulting from that proceedings should be annulled because it was rendered as a result of defectively performed administrative proceedings.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 February 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 2094/06 dismissed it. The Court ruled that the PPO did not correctly examine the similarity of signs based on the etymology of BI- prefix, however, the whole assesment proved that both signs are disimilar. The VAC noted that the power of attorney should be given in writing and attached to the case file when making the first legal action. The Court found that the copy of PoA was on the case file and it was issued under the authority and properly signed next to the stamp of a company. The original PoA was on file for the trade mark BI-KOR R-151731. The power of attorney was not challenged in the course of the invalidation proceedings, by the trade mark owner or the opponent.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 897/09

October 28th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 October 2009 VI SA/Wa 897/09 held that the company name (firm) serves as the identification and prominence of the entrepreneur in the legal and economic transactions. It is also a carrier of certain information about the characteristics and qualities of business conducted by such entrepreneur. An unauthorized interference with the function of a company name infringes on the right to the name. The company name, also of the civil partnership, is a personal interests/asset of the company and relates to its identity when it individualize such entrepreneur. The firm/company name is subject to protection of personal rights/intrests under Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 43 ^{10 of the Civil Code.}

R-143502

The Court ruled that the company name (firm) is the absolute personal right, effective erga omnes, and enjoyed by everyone including businesses and individuals that do business in the form of civil partnership. The right to a company name is formed with the entry of the entrepreneur in the business register, and in any event, when the company used for the first time in trade. Entrepreneurs may claim the right to the company name (the firm) after they have been registered in the Register of Entrepreneurs in the National Court Register or in the Economic Activity Records. The disclosure of trade name/company’s name is provided in the registry (National Court Register – Polish public register maintained by the selected regional courts and the Ministry of Justice which includes the register of enterprises). It has a declaratory nature. The Economic Activity Records are maintained by the municipality of the place of residence of the entrepreneur.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 January 2008 case file II GSK 298/07 held that the right of the company name is infringed if the registration of a trade mark conflicts and interferes with the exercise of the right to company name. See “Trade mark law, II GSK 298/07“. This conflict is based on misleading as to the identity of entities (acting under the company name and using the trade mark) and therefore it may jeopardize the company name (firm). Such conclusions were reached by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 26 April 2006 case file II GSK 31/06.

This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of word-figurative trade mark PIOR R-143502 owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Usługowo-Handlowo-Reklamowe PRIOR, Rostkowska Janina, Rostkowski Jan, Kuc Małgorzata from Chorzów.

Trade mark and Press law, VI SA/Wa 2135/08

September 9th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On March 2003, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark 1000 Jolek R-142003 for Oraczewski Roman Oficyna Wydawnicza PRESS-MEDIA from Mielec for goods in Class 16 such as magazines, brochures, crosswords, periodicals.

On October 2003, Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o. o. from Częstochowa filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for the trade mark 1000 Jolek R-142003. Technopol based its opposition on articles 9(1)(i) and 8(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.

(1) Registration of a trade mark for goods of the same kind shall not be permissible where:
i) it resembles a mark registered on behalf of another enterprise to such an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity

Article 8(1)
A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence.

Technopol argued that 1000 Jolek was similar to a series of crosswords periodicals which include magazines marked by a noticeable number in conjunction with the word “panoramic” (in Polish: panoramiczny), i.e. trade marks such as 100 PANORAMICZNYCH R-109471, 200 PANORAMICZNYCH R-105389, or 1000 PANORAM R-126399. According to Technopol, the disputed trade mark duplicated the distinctive element of Technopol’s marks – the form of a numeric element. In Technopol’s view, if the word “Jolki” is omitted it only remains a white figure on a red background. In this situation, the average recipient will identify this sign with a series of Technopol’s publications which have been known for many years. Technopole emphasized that it was the leader in the market for crossword magazines publishing that started in 1994 by introducing the first issue of crossword magazine 100 PANORAMICZNYCH (100 Panoramic). Then Oraczewski began to compete with Technopole by puting on the market crossword magazines entitled in an identical manner, where the leading element a multiple number of 100 was exposed, and the numbers were connected with the word “panoramic” or “crosswords”. According to Technopol, the success of its titles lay precisely in the simplicity of communicating with its customers; Oraczewski took advantage of Technopol’s success in creating of such excellent titles. Technopol also argued that its signs make the so-called “family”, a series of trade marks used to mark Poland’s most popular series of games magazines, which can be more easily identfied through the common element – the number “100” or its multiples, which is also perceived by the public as information about the goods originating from the same company.

PRESS-MEDIA argued that the disputed trade mark is descriptive in its phonetic aspect, since the number “1000” combined with the word “Jolek (which defines the type of crossword) causes the trade mark to lack concrete distinctive character. Crucial for the distinctive character of the disputed trade mark is its graphics consisting of the maroon background, the composition of the number 1000 and “Jolek” which are written in fanciful font. PRESS-MEDIA also argued that digits (numbers) only, as well as numbers with words such as “crosswords”, “panoramic”, “panorama”, “sudoku” are purely informational signs with regard to journals with crosswords and other logical exercises. These signs inform of the quantity and/or types of logical exercises/crosswords available in a magazine/publication. PRESS-MEDIA also mentioned that OHIM has repeatedly refused to grant to Technopol trade mark registrations for numbers as trade marks for goods in class 16. See CTM applications such as 150 no. 00466549, 250 no. 004665592, 350 no. 004665601, 222 no. 004665618, 333 no. 004665683, 555 no. 004665709 and Community Trade Marks such as 100 SUDOKU no. 004635711 and 200 SUDOKU no. 004635736. In its decision of April 2009, the PPO rejected Technopol’s oppostion. The company filed a complaint.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 February 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2135/08 ruled that the protection of a press title which is also a trade mark for a crossword magazine does not exclude the possibility of obtaining the right of protection by another entrepreneur for the press title containing the same elements (numbers), if these signs can be easily distinguished in the trade. The provisions included in article 132(4) 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, permit a convergence of these elements, which on the press-market are in a common use, which also excludes the possibility of monopolisation of the use of such phrases.

3. The protection of a trade mark which contains the signs referred to in Article 131(2)(ii)-(iv) and the symbols referred to in Article 131(2)(v), or signs which relate to the origin of the goods, shall not prevent a trade mark containing the same elements from being granted a right of protection on behalf of another undertaking for identical or similar goods, provided that the both trade marks remain easily distinguishable in the course of trade.

4. Paragraph (3) shall apply accordingly to press-titles as trade marks that contain words or combinations of words customary used in the press-market.

What is more interesting the Polish court acknowledged that this rule is also reflected in the foreign case-law concerning conflicts of trade marks and press titles and pointed out to two judgments of the German Bundesgerichtshof of 1 March 2001, case act signatures I ZR 211/98 and I ZR 205/98, that concerned TAGESSCHAU and TEGESBILD trade marks and TAGESSCHAU and TAGESREPORT trade marks, (AfP of 2001 r., no 5, pp. 385, 389). The judgment is not final and a cassation complaint has been filed.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1483/08

June 23rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On September 2006, the Polish Patent Office issued a decision invalidating the right of protection of the BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 trade mark, owned by Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH from Hamburg, Germany. The PPO ruled that the registration of the disputed mark occurred in violation of article 8(2) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 1985, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 1985 No 5, itme 15, with later amendments.

A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
ii) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties

It was indisputable for the PPO that BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 consists of the “BOSS” sign, which was written in black, this being the only element of BOSS R-66417 trade mark and the main element of other signs: HUGO BOSS R-66418, BOSS HUGO BOSS IR-584899 and BOSS IR-606620 which are owned by HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG from Metzingen, Germany.

Reemtsma filed a complaint before the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The court rejected the complaint in its judgment of 4 September 2007, case file VI SA/WA 2195/06. Reemtsma filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC agreed with Reemtsma’s arguments that the PPO did not explain the facts accurately and did not thoroughly conside the entire evidence. The case was sent back to the VAC. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07“

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 6 February 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1483/08 annulled the contested decision of the PPO and decided that the decision was not subject to execution. The VAC also stressed the fact that it is necessary to distinguish the renown of an entrepreneur – its good reputation and positive image – from the trade mark’s reputation (renown). In the case of the reputation (renown) of a trade mark – the subject of positive perceptions is the mark itself and the goods identified by such mark as originating from a particular business, and the reputation of the entrepreneur is generally positive perceptions and assessments about the business.

The case went back to the PPO. However, the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 15 October 2010 case Sp. 255/09 invalidated the right of protection for the BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 trade mark. This time, the PPO found that the trade mark in question is confusingly similar to BOSS HUGO BOSS IR-584899 and BOSS IR-606620 trade marks, and these findings were justified by the literal interpretation of the provisions of Article 9(1)(iii) of the TMA.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 197/08

June 11th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 5 September 2007, the Polish Patent Office dismissed the opposition filed by the German company Merck against the word trade mark zalbion R-159782 owned by the Polish company Bioton and registered for goods in Class 5 such as pharmaceuticals. Merck argued that the opposed trade mark is similar to its word trade mark cebion R-64136. Merck noted that Cebion is a well known sign since 80ties and enjoys big reputation on the Polish and international market. The PPO decided that the goods bearing the opposed trade marks are homogenous and it did not matter that they have a different application and are directed to different consumers. Cebion is a preparation with vitamin C, and it is a type of product available without any prescription, zalbion is eye drops product available only on prescription. However, the PPO found that both signs are phonetically dissimilar, despite the common syllable, and they have fanciful meaning. The PPO also said that evidence of the reputation of cebion presented by Merck was insufficient. Merck filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 August 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 197/08 anulled the contested decision and decided that it was not subject to execution. The Court held that the PPO has not made a thorough review of the presented evidence. The judgment is final.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 251/08

January 18th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative court in its judgment of 24 June 2008 case file II GSK 251/08 ruled that due to the fact that the trade mark MILKA that was invoked against the trade mark MIKLA R-148766 registered for goods in Classes 12 and 30, is a word trade mark, its use can manifest itself in a way that was chosen by the owner, which means that the holder may impose it on goods but not in any contradiction of the conditions afforded by the right of protection. The trade mark holder may, therefore, by marking the goods for which the sign received protection, to use a word trade mark by incorporating it in other registered trade mark, or to join it with the elements known and belonging to other sign.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1388/07

January 15th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 11 May 2004, the Polish Patent Office issued a positive decision on the registration of EAU DE TOKYO R-153843 trade mark for goods in Class 3. It was applied for by the MGT Parfum Création from Hofheim-Wallau on 7 September 2000.

R-153843

Kenzo Societe Anonyme from France filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection claiming it was granted in violation of the provisions of Articles 8(1) and 9(1)(i) of the old Polish Act of 31 January 1985 on Trade Marks – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments.

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

Article 9
(1) Registration of a trade mark for goods of the same kind shall not be permissible where:
i) it resembles a mark registered on behalf of another enterprise to such an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;

The request had to be based on the old Act because the trade mark application was filed while the old act was in force. KENZO was claiming the similarity of marks, KENZO TOKYO BY KENZO R-207663 and TOKYO BY KENZO R-207662 and their reputation. The French company has also argued that the German company imposes its trade mark on similar bottles to Kenzo’s bottles. On February 2007, the PPO rejected the invalidation request and KENZO has appealed this decision.

R-153843-3D

The German company did not respond to the correspondence on this matter and no other address was known. During earlier hearings on July 2008, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw had to ask the President Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys to designate a curator for the German company. The curator did not agree with KENZO arguments. He pointed that the assessment had to be a comparison of the signs as they were registered, and not the packaging.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 November 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1388/07 dismissed the complaint. The Court acknowledged the fact that the PPO did not negate the reputation of KENZO trade marks. According to the VAC, the PPO was not obliged to take into account KENZO’s reputation, since the Office found that the disputed signs were not similar. The Court did not agree with the argument that these signs had similar associations because cosmetics marked by them come from Japan. According to Judge Olga Żurawska-Matusiak such conclusion would be too far-reaching. She also pointed that the PPO has properly assessed both trade marks. The issue of passing off of packages should be decided by a civil court in a different proceedings.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 361/06

December 12th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 9 July 1998, the Polish company called “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL Spólka z o. o.” (PUTI) applied for trade mark reigstration for word-figurative sign “i INTEL” in class 37 for services such as: electric appliance installation and repair, fire alarm installation and repair, burglar alarm installation and repair, installation and repair of extinguishing and smoke ventilation systems, installation and repair of access control systems, and in class 38 for industrial television. The Polish Patent Office has granted the protection rights in its decision of 9 December 2002. On 21 July 2003, Intel Corporation has filed an opposition against the PPO’s decision. Since the trade mark application was filed while 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, was in force, so the opposition had to be based on its article 8(1) and (2) and article 9(1)(i) and (ii).

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

Article 9
(1) Registration of a trademark for goods of the same kind shall not be permissible where:
(i) it resembles a mark registered on behalf of another enterprise to such an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;
(ii) it is similar to a trademark that is well known in Poland as a trademark for goods of another enterprise to an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;

To support its opposition, Intel Corp. has provided arguments that a sign is applied for or registered in contrary to the principles of society coexistence if it seeks to use or to undermine the reputation of other trade mark, regardless of the nature of the goods or services to which it refers. Intel Corp. successfully argued that Intel is word trade mark which is well-known and reputable. It is widely recognized and valued as a synonym for the highest quality products branded by this sign (or its derivatives) in the IT sector. The widespread knowledge of that trade was also confirmed in the Polish Patent Office’s decision in early 1994. The features and the highest quality of Intel brand products have also to be attributed to the Intel Inside trade mark because of its equally vast, global popularity and strong positive associations among customers. Intel R-93693 and Intel Inside R-86431 trade marks were registered in Poland in priority, respectively of 8 November 1990 and 18 June 1991.

“i Intel” is a sign which has a distinctive part consisting of Intel sign which is similar to Intel Copr. trade marks. It leads consumers to think that there is an association between Intel Corporation and a disputed sign, consequently, there is a risk of confusion as to the origin of goods or services which are identified by the disputed mark. According to Intel Corp., the use of the contested trade mark by PUTI was based on the reputation and the widely recognized quality of Intel trade mark. PUTI registration was made in favour of its marketing business and for the economic benefits of the Polish company. This kind of behavior also brings the risk of confusion among consumers as to the identity, trade and economic links and between Intel Corporation and PUTI. In addition, Intel Corporation has filed the explanatory memorandum arguing that “i Intel” sign violates the applicant’s personal rights. The firm (protected as personal rights under the Polish Civil Code) is the name under which Intel Corporation conducts its business, it is also the reputation of a company, to which the applicant has worked since 1968 (the establishment of Intel Corporation in the U.S.).

Since fields of business activities of PUTI and Intel Corp. did not overlap, The Polish firm argued that Intel Corp. had not demonstrated that the disputed trade mark makes difficult for Intel to use its company name. PUTI has also argued that the opposition should not be based on article 9 of the PTA since the disputed trade mark is designated for services not goods. PUTI argued that it has been using the name “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL” in 1989 and 1990, which was before Intel Corporation had registered its trade marks in Poland.

The Polish Patent Office invalidated “i Intel” trade mark in its decision of 19 October 2005. It was proved before the PPO that PUTI was founded on 23 July 1997 as a limited liability company, and previously (from 1 November 1983) it had operated on the market in the form of a civil company and the name Intel had been used for the first time in its firm in 1994. In PPO’s opinion, PUTI’s use of “i Intel” sign with ® before trade mark registration was granted was also a proof of taking the advantage of reputation of Intel Corp. trade marks, which was contrary to the principles of society coexistence that were defined in this case as a matter of fairness trade.

PUTI appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 April 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 126/06 dismissed the appeal. The court held that trade marks of Intel Corp. that were registered with the earlier priority are renowned in Poland in relation to the persons involved in electronics, computers, electrical and electronic equipment of various kinds, and PUTI’s application for the contested trade mark was intended to use the reputation of Intel Corp. trade mark portfolio. In court’s opinion the Polish Patent Office has had to compare these trade marks with the disputed sign in aural verbal and visual aspects and it has reasonably concluded that there is a clear likeness between them, and given that the signs are used for determining goods, which are compatible with regard to services to which the disputed trade mark is intended use, so there was a condition for the inadmissibility of the disputed trade mark registration within the meaning of article 9.

PUTI filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court. However, the Court dismissed the case in its judgment of 15 May 2007 case file II GSK 361/06. SAC explicitly held that Intel is well-known trade mark on the Polish market (strong sign) and its reputation was not questioned even by the Polish company. Consequently, it should be considered that the danger of confusion between trade marks by customers, is the greater, the more well-known (or as the Court also said – standardized) is a trade mark with an earlier priority, because customers’ memory directs them in a particulary easy way, to trade marks which are well-known on the market.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 390/08

September 8th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

RSX Company from Katowice applied for and was granted trade mark protection for word trade mark MERCI on 4 September 2003, R-146586. The sign covered substitutes for coffee and coffee-based beverages as provided in class 30.

August Storck KG, the manufacturer of MERCI chocolates from Germany, filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection of the RSX trade mark. August Storck has owned the MERCI word trade mark R-68903 protected in Poland since 1990, also in class 30 (cocoa, chocolate, sweets). The decision on registration was issued by the Polish Patent Office on 4 March 1992. August Storck also registered a MERCI word-figurative trade mark in Poland, based on the Madrid Agreement’s provisions, IR-0728855.

IR-0728855

The German company alleged during the invaidation proeceedings that between those two signs there exists a risk of collision. Originally, the Polish Patent office ruled that there was no chance of such risk, because the goods were different, namely, coffee and cocoa. Accordingly, the PPO rejected the opposition filed by August Storck.

The German Company appealed against the PPO’s decision to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. August Storck’s representative alleged that PPO has incorrectly analyzed the goods in question. The VAC agreed with this argument in its judgement of 13 October 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 895/06 and it annulled the PPO’s decision. The court emphasized the fact that there was no doubt that coffee and cocoa belonged to the same group of goods and that they were sold in the same stores. Coffee is a component of many chocolate products. In the court’s opinion, the PPO wrongly considered that these goods were not homogeneous. DAC also found that PPO improperly accepted that coffee and cocoa may be produced by different undertakings.

The case went back to the Polish Patent Office. RSX argued that coffee is a specific drink and no-one would connect it with cocoa, since they are not complementary goods. The RSX representative pointed that in one class the goods may be heterogeneous, for instance chewing gum and chocolate. However, the PPO in its decision of 28 August 2007 (Sp. 65/07) annulled the disputed mark. The Office held that in accordance with article 9(1)(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 later amendment, three conditions have to be fulfilled: the signs are identical or similar, homogeneity of goods, the possibility of leading a consumer into confusion as to the origin of goods. The PPO acknowledged in its decision that all three conditions were met.

This time RSX appealed the PPO’s decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 July 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 390/08 dismissed the complaint and ruled that PPO’s decision was this time correct. Coffee and cocoa are competitive products and the consumers overlap. Cocoa can be bought by a follower of coffee (not necessarily a person who drinks it), for example, as a gift for someone. Therefore, these are homogeneous goods.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07

July 30th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH from Hamburg registered the trade mark BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 in class 34 for goods such as tobacco, tobacco products, smokers’ articles, cigarettes, cigarillos, matches. The owner of the following trade marks: BOSS R-66417, registered for goods in classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 28, HUGO BOSS R-66418, registered for goods in classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 34, BOSS HUGO BOSS R-156696, registered for goods in class 34 and the word-figurative mark BOSS R-82792 filed before the Polish Patent Office a request for the invalidation of the right of protection for the trade mark BOSS LIGHTS. The PPO found that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion with reference to the origin of goods in the market turnover. The PPO also held that the registration of the BOSS LIGHTS trade mark violated the prior rights of HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG, including its company name.

Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 September 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 2195/06 sided with the PPO’s decision. Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken referred to the last instance and it has filed a cassation complaint before the Polish Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 May 2008, case file II GSK 506/07, gave an interpretation and clarified what is a famous (renown or reputed) trade mark and how to prove the fame of a trade mark. The SAC agreed with the view that famous trade mark has a reputation and that, besides its recognition, it must also be characterized by the following characteristics:

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

The SAC repealed the contested judgment and sent the case back to the VAC for reconsideration. See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1483/08“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 185/08

June 23rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Przedsiebiorstwo Przemyslu Spirytusowego Polmos in Warszawa objected to the trade mark application for SPIRYTUS REKTYFIKOWANY PL 1784, R-134685, filed by POLMOS LANCUT SA. Polmos in Warszawa claimed priority of an earlier trade mark – SPIRYTUS REKTYFIKOWANY, R-63628.

R-63628

SPIRYTUS REKTYFIKOWANY was bought by Polmos in Warsaw during an auction held by the Polish Ministry of the Treasury. All Polmos companies agreed in 1999 that they would not use trade marks owned by others in the Polmos “group”.

The Polish Patent Office (the PPO) decided that the contested mark had no distinctive character and it only indicated a specific kind of alcohol and method of production. Przedsiebiorstwo Przemyslu Spirytusowego Polmos in Warszawa lodged a complaint before the District Administrative Court in Warsaw seeking to annul the PPO’s decision. However, the Court sided with the PPO’s findings and rejected the complaint. The Court held that both signs were word-figurative marks and should be perceived and examined as whole.

R-134685

Polmos in Warszawa filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw. It supported its position with an argument that SPIRYTUS REKTYFIKOWANY acquired secondary meaning and had a good reputation bacause of the use during the course of trade. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 June 2008, case file II GSK 185/08 did not agree with such statements and rejected the complaint. The Court found that Polmos in Warszawa was seeking exclusive rights in the spirytus rektyfikowany sign, which was a purely informative term to be found in Polish dictionaries and official norms.

This case is the leading example of problems with trade mark portfolios of companies that were privatized in Poland after 1990. Polmos was state-owned monopoly, controlling the Polish market of spirits and other alcohols from middle ’20s until 1990, when it was divided and privatized into several independent companies.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 845/05

June 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Company 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, case VI SA/Wa 805/05

June 3rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 22 February 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 805/05 held that trade marks that are meant as signs for clothes (among other things for pants) resemble to each other to the extent that it may lead into the confusion of a consumer as regard to origin of goods in the regular course of trade, as defined in the article 9 sec. 1 pt 1 and pt 2 of the Act of 31 January 1985 on Trade marks, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 17 with subsequent amendments.

US TM 1139254

Such situation happened because both trade marks include horizontal seams crossing down the pocket which in its shapes reasemble seagull’s (eagle) wings, and where such element is simultaneously predominant for both signs.

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, VI SA/Wa 1100/07

December 21st, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 18 December 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 1100/07 dismissed McDonald’s Corporation complaint against the Polish Patent Office’s decision and ruled that a Singapore company was allowed to register MacCoffee mark for coffee products. McDonald’s will not be allowed to “monopolize” the Mc-prefix. This judgment should make all trade mark practitioners aware of differences between legal systems. Especially when this Polish case is compared to holding in the case Quality Inns Int’l v McDonald’s Corp., 695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988). The Court ruled that Quality International’s use of the name “McSleep” infringed McDonald’s family of marks that are characterized by the use of the prefix “Mc” combined with a generic word.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 207/07

December 4th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 November 2007 case file II GSK 207/07 held that even if the reputed mark is protected against the use on any goods, if this would bring a user an unfair advantage or it would be detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the trade mark, it does not mean that the both signs at issue should not be a subject to examination to determine their similarity or lack of it.

R-149636

The case concerned a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to the trade mark “dodoni A MOŻE MY JESTEŚMY DLA CIEBIE LEPSI COLA” R-149636 that was registered for Pepsi Corp. The SAC also ruled that the findings that both trade marks are not similar also implies that there is a lack of association between these signs by potential recipients.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1470/07

October 30th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of MURBET R-155245 trade mark owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Wielobranżowe MURBET Andrzej Zaborski. The proceedings were initiated by the MURBET Gabrylewicz Spółka Jawna company from Ełk.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 17 October 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 1470/07 held that the registration of a trade mark which infringes personal or property rights of third parties is unacceptable, and in light of case-law, in case of conflict between the company name (the firm), and a trade mark that registered with the “worse priority”, the priority shall be given to the earlier right. However, the exclusive rights to the company name (the firm) is not absolute. Its limits are set by the territorial and substantive coverage, the actual activity of person using the names. Only within these limits there may be a collision between identical or similar company name (the firm) and trademark.

R-222381

The VAC held that because of the distinct areas of the business activity of the person entitled to the company name and the holder of the right of protection to MURBET R-155245 trade mark, there is no risk of leading their consumers to confusion as to the identity of such business or the owner of the later trade mark. The owner of the questioned trade mark does not use the reputation associated with the earlier (identical or similar ) company name (the firm), then it is difficult to find the collision of these two rights, and consequently a breach of an earlier right to the company name by the registration of the later trade mark. The judgment is not final. See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 400/08“.