The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 June 2010 case VI SA/Wa 180/10 held that in assessing the confusing similarity the PPO should not be limited to include only one component of a complex sign while comparing it with another trade mark. On the contrary, such a comparison is made by examining the signs as whole.
Archive for: Polish Administrative Proceedings Code
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 180/10
September 6th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiTrade mark law, case II GSK 607/09
August 31st, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiTRODAT POLSKA Sp. z o.o. from Warsaw applied for the right of protection for Pieczątka 2 Z-294822, Pieczątka 3 Z-294821, and Pieczątka 4 Z-294823 trade marks in class 13. Pieczątka means “stamp” in English. The Polish Patent Office in letters dated 27 March 2007 informed the applicant that these signs are not capable of serving as trade marks due to lack of sufficient distinctive character and urged Trodat to submit comment on this issue. The applicant did not respond to the letters sent by the PPO, in particular, Trodat did not take any position on the reported lack of sufficient distinctive character.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 July 2010 case file II GSK 607/09 held that the burden of proof rests on those who seek for legal consequences from a particular fact for itself (the applicant), it results from a series of obligations incumbent on the applicant, including the obligation to provide explanations, to take an active part in the proceedings and to submit precise requests. These obligations are provided in Articles 145(2) and 152 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, in connection with Regulation of the Prime Minister of 8 July 2002 on filing and processing of trademark applications, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 115, item 998 with subsequent amendments.
Article 145
1. Subject to paragraph (2), where the Patent Office finds that the statutory requirements for the grant of a right of protection for a trademark have not been satisfied, it shall make a decision on refusal to grant the right.
2. Before the decision referred to in paragraph (1) is made, the Patent Office shall fix a time limit, within which the applicant is invited to react on the collected evidences and documents which imply the existence of grounds that may cause the right of protection to be denied.
3. Where the statutory requirements are found not to have been satisfied in respect to only certain goods, a right of protection for the trademark in respect of these goods shall be first to be refused by the Patent Office. On the respective decision becoming final the Patent Office shall grant a right of protection for the trademark in respect of the goods, for which it can be granted.Article 152
The Prime Minister shall, by way of regulation, determine the detailed requirements to be satisfied by a trademark application, the detailed rules and procedure to be applied in the course of examination of trademark applications including, in particular, the extent to which the relevant information may be disclosed to the public after the expiration of the period referred to in Article 143 and the manner in which it is made available, as well as the extent to which the Patent Office is authorised to make corrections in the list of goods and their classification. The requirements to be satisfied by trademark applications may not be determined in such a way as to encumber the applicant with excessive and unreasonable impediments.
The renunciation of the party – despite the invitation issued by the Polish Patent Office – to submit sufficient evidence, explanations, positions may not be of no importance in a situation where the party alleges that the PPO erred in its decision in this particular issue, as a result of breach of the obligation imposed on the PPO to clarify the circumstances of the case in accordance with Article 7 and 77 of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, 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.
Article 7
Public administration bodies shall uphold the rule of law during proceedings and shall take all necessary steps to clarify the facts of a case and to resolve it, having regard to the public interest and the legitimate interests of members of the public.Article 77.
§ 1. The public administration body is required to comprehensively collect and examine all evidential material.
§ 2. At each stage of proceedings a body can amend, supplement or withdraw rulings made regarding the examination of evidence.
§ 3. An body conducting proceedings as a result of having been required to do so by the body having jurisdiction to settle the case (Article 52) may, on an ex officio basis or on application by one of the parties, hear new witnesses or experts on circumstances that form the objects of such proceedings.
§ 4. Universally accepted facts and facts known to the body ex officio do not require proof. Parties to proceedings should be informed of facts that are known to the body.
The SAC noted that the provisions of the IPL that provides the possibility to request the applicant by the PPO to submit comments or issue a statement, in fact, serve to define the limits of administrative case, such as defining what is to be examined by the PPO and to what extent this should occur. The PPO is required to make an invitation before taking a decision, therefore, before deciding on the matter. At this stage, it is possible to have the intervention of the parties, if, contrary to the intentions expressed in the request/application, the PPO, for example, does not cover by its activities of all elements of the case, or unreasonably restricts its borders.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 839/09
August 28th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative in its judgment of 5 August 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 839/09 decided on the complaint of the holder of the Polish trademark registration DSC R-82966 against the decision Sp. 2/98 of the Polish Patent Office of 28 January 2009 on invalidation of this trademark.
The VAC has not examined substantive issues of the matter because as it has stated the decision of the Polish Patent Office is too general and it does not specify documents on which the Polish Patent Office has based its findings. In the Court’s opinion the Polish Patent Office quoting his findings has only used the phrase “it results from the submitted documents that…”, instead of giving precise description of each relevant document, which prevents the Voivodeship Administrative Court from presenting its opinion on the correctness of the questioned decision. In view of above, the complaint has been accepted and the matter has been transferred to the Polish Patent Office for reexamination.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 746/09
August 10th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThis is the continuation of a story decribed in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2284/08” that concerned the trade mark HERITAGE FILMS. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 August 2010 case file II GSK 746/09 dismissed the cassation complaint brought by Zygmunt Piotrowski. The SAC held inter alia that the provisions of the TMA or the IPL do not provide in the course of the litigation proceedings lead by the Polish Patent Office, for the possibility to control the legality of the administrative proceedings that concerned the registration of a given trade mark. The legality of a decision granting the right of protection should be challenged in different proceedings.
The Court noted that Mr Piotrowski confused the concepts of “invalidation of the registration right” or “invalidation of right of protection for a trade mark” with the annulment of the decision on the granting of the right. There are different grounds for such decisions and other procedures on their issuance, but in case of the breach of the provisions listed in Article 29 of the Trade Marks Act, those conditions may overlap, and only in this case they might be raised in the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the invaliditon of the protection right, although identical in its consequences, cannot be identified with the institution of the annulment of the decision on the granting of the right of protection.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 495/09
August 10th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiOn 14 March 1994, Polish entrepreneur operating under the name Usługi Pogrzebowe “Hades” Włodzimierz Wasilewski from Częstochowa applied for the right of protection for HADES Z-130892 trade mark in class 45, funeral services. Another Polish entrepreneur operating under the name Nowak Tomasz Firma Pogrzebowa HADES from Łódź filed an opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for HADES R-148641 trade mark.
Tomasz Nowak claimed that the Polish Patent Office ruled on the discontinuance of examination proceedings for HADES Z-130892 because of the failure to pay application fees and on 6 March 1999, he decided to file for the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark HADES Z-198798 in classes 26 31 39 42. On 26 September 2001 the PPO granted the right of protection for HADES R-132619 trade mark. Tomasz Nowak argued that the resumption of proceedings by the Patent Office on the application of HADES Z-130892 trade mark, which led to the granting of the right of protection, deprived him of part of the right acquired in good faith and the possibility to obtain the protection for the next sign. According to Tomasz Nowak the decision on the grant of the right of protection for HADES R-148641 trade mark, not only violates his right to earlier acquired trade mark, but most of all it violates the principle of certainty and security of legal transactions. It leads to a situation where the market will experience two identical trade marks, registered for identical goods, however, enjoyed by the various owners, which is contrary the rules of trade mark law of course.
The PPO dismissed the opposition and Tomasz Nowak filed a complaint against this decision of the PPO. He based its claims on provisions of article 8(1) and (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 subsequent amendments.
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;
Tomasz Nowak also challenged the examination proceedings which led to the registration of the questioned trade mark.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 January 2009 case VI SA/Wa 1941/08 ruled that legal provisions invoked in the complaint cannot be applied to assess the legality of the registration proceedings conducted by the PPO. Accordingly, the request for invalidation of right of protection of HADES trade mark under these provisions was irrelevant. The provisions of the TMA, or the IPL does not provide in the course of the litigation proceedings lead by the PPO, the possibility to control the legality of the administrative proceedings that concerned the registration of the questioned trade mark. The Court ruled that the allegations of violation of the administrative procedure by the PPO could only qualify as a basis for annulment of the decision. Tomasz Nowak was required to bring such claims in the complaint, however he did not so. Tomasz Nowak filed a cassation complaint.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 June 2010 case file II GSK 495/09 dismissed the cassation complaint. The SAC ruled that the VAC could not review the decision on the grant of a right of protection for HADES R-148641 trade mark. The VAC had to decide within the scope of the complaint and shall be bound by the legal ground invoked by the requesting party. The SAC also expressed the view that the registration of the name of someone else’s company does not preclude the registration of a trademark but the right to a name of the company must be infringed, and the existence of such right has not been proven by Tomasz Nowak. The complainer has not demonstrated that he had the right to name of the company. Actually both entrepreneurs have the right to use HADES sign as their business name. The complainer also argued that the mere prior use of the sign and not in relation to the applicant, but in relation to the entitled to the right of protection, provides a sufficient argument that the questioned trade mark infringes personal or economic rights of third parties. The SAC ruled that this view is incorrect. It clearly refers only to infringement of personal or property rights.
Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 599/10
August 2nd, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 599/10 held that the factual justification of the decision of the Polish Patent Office should contain the facts that the PPO regards as proven, the evidence relied upon and the reasons for which other evidence has been treated as not authentic and without probative force. The legal justification should contain the legal authority for the decision with reference to the relevant law. Only justification prepared in accordance with these requirements allows for a full review of the contested decision. The Court upheld the contested decision and ruled it unenforceable because the PPO found that the design meets the requirement of individual character, but it did not explain which differences in shapings decide on their individual character. The position of PPO as to a small range of creative freedom was also not apparent from the justification.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Plafoniera sufitowa” (in English: Ceiling plafoniere/ceiling-mounted chandelier) Rp-12232. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 598/10
August 2nd, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 598/10 held that the court’s review of a decision issued by the PPO does not include a requirement to make additional findings for a case. The factual justification of the decision should contain the facts that the PPO regards as proven, the evidence relied upon and the reasons for which other evidence has been treated as not authentic and without probative force. The legal justification should contain the legal authority for the decision with reference to the relevant law. Only justification prepared in accordance with these requirements allows for a full review of the contested decision.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Ramię ozdobne do opraw oświetleniowych” (in English: Decorative Arm for luminaires) Rp-12224. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
Trade mar law, case VI SA/Wa 2180/09
July 31st, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 28 July 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2180/09 held that since the decision on the establishment who owns copyright to the questioned trade mark that should be issued by a civil court, was not taken, because of the failure to act of a party, the PPO correctly decided that the reasons for the stay of the invalidation proceedings indicated in the order, no longer holds. This case concerned the trade mark panorama pogody R-145414 owned by Eniro Polska Spółka z o.o. from Warsaw.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2178/09
July 27th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiA Polish entrepreneur requested the Polish Patent Office for the invalidation of the word trade mark “panorama religii” R-145419, claiming the it owns copyright to the aforementioned sign. The PPO decided to stay the proceedings and ordered the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of the order to file a suit to the civil court with regard to establishement of copyrights to the disputed trade mark. The applicant was also ordered to provide the PPO with certified copies of the suit within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The applicant did not file such a suit and stated that he will not take those steps. After filing another motions this case went to the administrative court.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 28 July 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2178/09 held that whether there was an infringement of civil jurisdiction, in this regard, the matter will be subject to review by the Court on the complaint against the merits of the PPO’s decision.
Procedural law, case VI SA/Wa 2135/09
July 26th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 July 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2135/09 held that when the party was aware of the deadline and has failed to comply and formally applies for the restoration, the authority cannot leave this request without consideration, while adopting the decision on the merits immediately. The general provisions of the Administrative Proceedings Code are applicable in such case.
Article 59.
§ 1. The relevant public administration body in the case shall make a decision on whether to reschedule the deadline. An interlocutory objection may be filed in relation to a refusal to restore the deadline.
§ 2. The body having jurisdiction for hearing an appeal or an interlocutory objection shall make a ruling on whether to reschedule the deadline for making such an appeal or interlocutory objection.
The relevant public administration body decides whether to reschedule the deadline.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 503/10
July 20th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiIn January 2010, Polish company LMW sp z o.o. represented by a patent attorney filed via the Polish Patent Office (PPO) a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, against the decision of the PPO on the refusal to grant a right of protection for LIBERTY MOTORS trade mark Z-315048.
In the Court’s order of 8 April 2010, a representative of LMW was asked to remedy the formal deficiencies of a complaint by submitting a power of attorney/proxy to act on behalf of the applicant before the voivodeship administrative court or before administrative courts and the document setting out the power to represent the applicant, i.e. the original or a certified copy of the full entry from the National Court Register, within 7 days from the date of service of summons under pain of dismissal of the action. This summons were served on 16 April 2010. The deficiencies were not removed.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its order of 31 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 503/10 rejected LMW’s complaint. The Court held that according to provisions of article 58 § 1 pt 3 of the Act on the Law on proceedings before administrative courts – PBAC – (in Polish: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi) of 30 August 2002, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270 with later amendments, the administrative court shall reject the complaint, if it was not compensated for the formal deficiencies, within the prescribed period of time.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 173/10
July 18th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 173/10 held that the statutory condition for the lapse of the right of protection is intended to eliminate the rights of protection granted to those signs that are not actually used in trade. The grant of the protection for a trademark is associated with the statutory obligation of genuine use of the mark for goods and services for which the trade mark is registered. It cannot be used symbolically, only to maintain the rights of registration. This case concerned the proceedings on lapse of the right of protection for “transpak gotuj ze smakiem” R-129729 trade Mark owned by Grajewski Zbigniew, Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Usługowo-Handlowe TRANSPAK from Puszczykowo.
Procedural law, case II GSK 643/09
July 12th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 June 2010 case file II GSK 643/09 clarified the rules for a cassation complaint. Accordingly, a cassation complaint may be based on the violation of substantive law. The violation is based on legal misinterpretation or improper application of the law. Misinterpretation is a false understanding of legal norms. The improper application is a wrong recognition that the factual scenario established in a given case is a subject to a specific rule of law. The improper application of law may also rely on non-application of the legal provision which should be used in a given case. The violation of the substantive law by the court of first instance (the Voivodeship Administrative Court) is always based on the wrong assessment of the application of substantive law by the Polish Patent Office. That is, either through the unfounded acceptance of an error in law that was made by the PPO or unjustified accusation of the PPO of such error. The SAC stressed that the allegation of infringement of substantive law can be effectively formulated only when the applicant who filed a cassation complaint agrees that the facts of the case had been established properly. Putting this plea in the case of challenging the factual findings is premature.
Polish patent attorneys, case II GZ 224/09
June 28th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 May 2010, case file II GZ 224/09 ruled that the Act on the Law on proceedings before administrative courts – PBAC – (in Polish: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi) of 30 August 2002, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270, with subsequent amendments, did not afford a possibility of making a further appeal, or complaint from the judgments delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court. This means that the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court becomes final upon its publication. The administrative proceedings, as a general rule, is divided into two stages of jurisdiction. This principle is consistent with the regulations included in Article 176(2) of the Polish Constitution.
Procedural law, case VI SA/Wa 146/10
May 24th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 146/10 held that the provisions of the Administrative Proceedings Code should be applied accordingly to the litigation procedure before the Polish Patent Office in cases not regulated by the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments. It means that PPO is required to conduct proceedings in such a way as to increase the trust of citizens in the State bodies and public awareness and appreciation of the law. This principle implies the requirement of a lawful and fair conduct of the proceedings and settlement of the case by a public authority, which is the basic principle of Rule of law. Only the proceedings corresponding to such requirements and decisions rendered in it can inspire the trust of citizens in public administrations bodies, even when administrative decisions did not include claims raised by the citizen.
Polish patent attorneys – substitution and delivery of documents
May 16th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiAccording to the provisions of Articles 240 and 241 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments, a representative shall be authorised to appoint a substitute (substitution).
Article 240
1. Except for the persons referred to in Article 236(2), a representative shall be authorised to appoint a substitute (substitution).
2. Authorisation by another joint right holder shall not be required for performing conservatory action.Article 241
1. Where two or more persons are parties to a proceeding and no representative has been appointed, the persons concerned shall be required to indicate one address for service. Failing to indicate such address, the address of the person named first in the application or in another document, on the basis of which the proceeding is instituted, shall be deemed to be that address.2. At a party’s request, the Patent Office shall also send letters addressed according to paragraph (1) to the addresses additionally indicated by that party. This provision shall also apply accordingly, where only one person who has appointed a representative is a party to the proceeding.
As the effect of establishing a substitute, the same relationship, which was established between a party and a patent attorney is also created between a party and a substitute, while maintaining the existing powers of attorney. This means that the party has two equivalent proxies since the establishment of an effective substitution. See for instance opinions presented by the Supreme Court Civil Chamber in a judgment of 13 February 2004, case file IV CK 269/02, the Supreme Court Civil Chamber in a decision of 7 November 2006, case file I CZ 78/06, or judgment of the Voivodeship Administraive Court in Poznańof dnia 20 February 2007, case file I SA/Po 1432/06.
On the basis of provisions of Article 40 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, where a party has established a representative, all documents are delivered to the proxy and not a party.
Article 40.
§ 1. Documents shall be served on the party to proceedings, and if the party is acting by a representative – on that representative.
§ 2. If a party to proceedings has appointed an attorney then documents shall be served on the attorney.
§ 3. If a case has been commenced at the instigation of two or more parties the documents shall be served on all parties, unless the application indicates that one of them is authorised to receive service.
Due to the limitation established for granting the substitute power of attorney only to patent attorneys and provisions of article 237(1) of the IPL which provide that there can be only one proxy for one legal action, in case of existence of a substitute, all correspondence will be delivered to one person – the agent or a substitute.
Article 237
1. In the performance of one act a party may be represented by one natural person only.
2. A power of attorney shall be in writing and shall be included in the files on performance of first legal act.
3. Where the power of attorney covers two or more cases, it shall be included in the files of that of the cases, in respect of which the first act is performed by the representative. When acting in other cases covered by the power of attorneys, the representative shall be required to furnish a certified copy of the power of attorney.
4. A patent agent shall be allowed to certify himself a copy of the power of attorney granted to him.
5. Failing to pay a due stamp duty for the power of attorney, the Patent Office shall invite the representative to make relevant payment and in case it should not be made, it shall additionally invite the party to confirm, within the fixed time limit, the acts performed by the representative. Failing to observe the fixed time limit, the provision of Article 223(4) shall apply accordingly.
The decision in this regard will be taken following an assessment of attorney documents and attorney substitution. However, in the case of granting substitution of confluence with the scope of powers of attorney and without indicating an address for delivery of documents, the Polish Patent Office will continue to deliver documents only to a substitute.
Polish patent attorneys – authentication of documents
April 25th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiAccording to the provisions of Articles 76a § 2, 3 and 4 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 party may file copy of a document if it complies with the original one and its originality have been authenticated by a patent attorney acting as a representative. According to the recently amended Act on the authentication of documents, such documents should include: the signature of a patent attorney, the date and the venue for its preparation, and also on a request: the time of the transaction. If the document contains special features (annotations, corrections or damages) patent attorney will acknowledge it in the authentication. The authentication of originality that was included in the copy of the document has the nature of the official document. In special circumstances, the Patent Office may request a party to submit original documents.
Industrial design, case II GSK 323/09
February 23rd, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiA Polish company filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office (PPO) on the grant of a right in registration for the industrial design. The opposition has been filed under the provisions of Article 102(1), Article 103(1), Article 104(1) and (2) and Article 106(1) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments.
Article 102
1. Any new and having individual character appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, colours, shape, texture or materials of the product and its ornamentation, shall constitute an industrial design.Article 103
1. An industrial design shall be considered new if, before the date according to which priority to obtain a right in registration is determined and subject to paragraph (2), no identical design has been made available to the public, i.e. used, exhibited or otherwise disclosed. Designs shall also be deemed to be identical with those made available to the public if their features differ only in immaterial details.Article 104
1. An industrial design shall be considered to have individual character, if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available before the date according to which priority is determined.
2. In assessing individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design shall be taken into consideration.Article 106
1. Rights in registration shall not be granted for industrial designs whose exploitation would be contrary to public order or morality; exploitation of an industrial design shall not be considered to be contrary to public order merely because it is prohibited by law.
The opposing party claimed the lack of novelty becuse the disputed design was disclosed inter alia during the exchange of correspondence with the owner and the lack of the individual character of a product. The PPO rejected the opposition and ruled that the industrial design is new. While referring to the cooperation between the opposing company and the owner, the PPO noted that the disclosure of a design was only approved between both parties. The PPO stated that the industrial design in question was not disclosed publicly. In the proceedings before the PPO and the courts no other evidence with regard to public disclosure of the design was submitted.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 November 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1767/08 dismissed the complaint against the decision of the PPO. The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 20 January 2010 case file II GSK 323/09 dismissed the cassation complaint. The SAC held that any correspondence, not only commercial, bears the characteristics of confidentiality due to the fact that by its nature it is addressed to the designated entity, and refers the specific content associated with a certain confidence on the part of the sender. Its publication requires the consent of both parties. Therefore, it coould not be argued that the disclosure of a new design could take place in the correspondence between the two businesses working together. The cassation complaint also presented the argument of exceeding the principle of formality. The Court ruled it unfounded based on provisions of Articles 255 and 256 of the IPL.
Article 2551
1. Litigation proceedings in the cases referred to in Article 255(1)(i)-(viii) shall be initiated at a written request.
2. A request for initiation of a proceeding shall be subject to payment of a fee.
3. A request shall contain:
(i) identification of the parties and their addresses
(ii) brief presentation of the case
(iii) clear definition of the decision sought
(iv) reference to the legal ground
(v) indication of evidence
(vi) signature of the requesting party and a date
4. The request shall be accompanied by:
(i) a power of attorney, where the request is submitted by the representative
(ii) copies of the request in a number corresponding to the number of the parties to the litigation proceeding
(iii) a receipt for the payment of the fee referred to in paragraph (2).
5. The Patent Office shall check whether the request for initiation of a litigation proceeding satisfies the formal requirements referred to in paragraphs (3) and (4).
6. Where the request fails to satisfy the formal requirements, the Patent Office shall invite the requesting party to remove the defects, under pain of discontinuance of the proceeding, within 30 days.Article 256
1. The provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure shall apply accordingly to litigation procedure before the Patent Office in cases not regulated by this Law.
2. To costs of proceedings the provisions applied in civil law proceedings shall apply accordingly.
3. The provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure governing re-examination, at a party’s request, of cases, in which decisions not liable to appeal were taken, shall not apply to decisions on merits taken after hearing.
31. The cases referred to in Article 2553(2) may be requested to be re-adjudicated. A time limit for submitting a request shall be, in case of a decision made – two months and in case of an order issued – one month from the date of the decision or the order being served upon the party.
Because of the adversarial nature of proceedings before the PPO, the party has to prove the circumstances from which it derives the legal consequences that are more favorable. The proceedings before the Polish Patent Office are reduced of principles set out in the 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, including the principle of formality, or the principle to watch over the interests of the parties by the public administration bodies.
This case concerned the industrial design “Zadaszenie drzwi” (in English: door canopy) Rp-9198. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
E-access to public information, case II SAB/ Wa 57/09
February 18th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiIn 2008, the Polish media reported a story on the Polish Post which allegedly tested a system that scans envelopes and parcels. There were rumours that information gathered by such scanning could be used by the Internal Security Agency (ABW). ABW denied, but the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection has decided to investigate how the collected data are processed during the scan. Roman P. has requested the GIODO to make available the results of the investigation. Since Roman P. filed his request by phone and then by e-mail, the GIODO informed that it will consider the request only after it receives personal data of Roman P.
The GIODO based its opinion on the provisions of Article 63 § 3 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.
§ 1. Applications (requests, explanations, appeals, complaints) may be filed in writing or by telegram, telex, fax, email or by using the form available on the website of the competent public administration, allowing data entry into the communications system of the body, as well as verbally to the protocol.
§ 2 The application shall include at least an indication of the person from whom it comes, its address and it shall satisfy other requirements stipulated in the special regulations.
§ 3 The application submitted in writing or orally to the protocol shall be signed by the applicant, and also by an employee who made the protocol. When the application is filed by a person who can not or do not know how to make a signature, the application or a protocol is signed by other person authorized, by making a reference next to the signature.
The GIODO decided that the application filed by Roman P. shall indicate the person from whom it derives, its address and the scope of the request, otherwise, the request will not be examined.
Roman P. brought a complaint against this decisopn. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment case file II SAB/ Wa 57/09 ruled that the GIODO failed to act and ordered the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection to examine Roman P. request within 14 days because information he demanded, is deemed as the public information as defined in Article 5(2) of the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on Access to Public Information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with subsequent amendments. The Court also ruled that arguments and findings to leave the application without further examination, because it was sent by e-mail, have no support in the APC.
See also “Polish case law on e-access to public information“.
Personal data protection, case I OSK 667/09
February 13th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiOn 15 January 2008, Tomasz W. filed with the General Inspector for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) a complaint concerning an unauthorized processing of personal data carried out by the Polish company Nasza Klasa Sp. z o.o. from Wroclaw, the owner of nasza-klasa.pl website. He informed the GIODO, that this very popular Polish website on classmates, hosts a photo featuring his image together with a list of names of other photographed people attached to it. Tomasz W. has repeatedly appealed to the website administrators with the request to remove his name from the list. However, he received no response from Nasza Klasa company.
As a result of the investigation, the GIODO found that on 31 December 2007, a registered user of nasza-klasa.pl posted classmates’ photo featuring students of a primary school. On the same day, another registered user, placed the names of people who were portrayed at the photograph – including the name and surname of Tomasz W. On 2, 9 and 14 January 2008, Tomasz W. requested Nasza Klasa Sp. z o.o. the removal of his personal data.
In a decision of 27 May 2008, case file DOLiS/DEC-314/08/13239, the GIODO, relying on the provisions of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with subsequent amendments, ruled that information on the applicant’s full name, school and class to which he attended, together with his image, are personal data and the data collector is Nasza Klasa Sp. z o.o.
However, the GIODO also ruled that it should be borne in mind that according to the provision of the Polish Act of 18 July 2002 on Providing Services by Electronic Means – PSEM – (in Polish: ustwa o świadczeniu usług droga elektroniczną), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 144, item. 1204 with subsequent amendments, Nasza Klasa sp. z o.o. provides electronic services for registered users of the portal website, consisting of the storage of data of these users in the computer system. This activity is the condition to legalize the processing of personal data in accordance with article 23(1) pt. 5 of the PPD. In addition, the GIODO found that in this case the applicant’s rights have not been violated, because the access to its data was limited to a group of people registered on nasza-klasa.pl website.
Tomasz W. asked the GIODO for the retrial. He pointed out that the reasons for the decision have many contradictions, inconsistencies and is ambiguous. He accused the GIODO of laconic and cursory treatment of his case. He again emphasized that his personal data have been published on the nasza-klasa.pl website without his knowledge or consent, in violation of his civil rights and liberties.
After the rehearing of the case, the GIODO annulled the contested decision, and discontinued the proceedings. GIODO claimed that the re-examination of the case leads to the conclusion that the disputed information about Tomasy W. did not fall within the definition of personal data. The name and surname have been given under his old image from many years ago. Hence, the combination of photos from the past, with a name and surname of a person and a primary school, which such person attended did not allow for the identification of a person without excessive costs and time. The findings that the disputed information is not personal data within the meaning of the PPD caused the proceedings in the matter to be groundless and on the basis of article 105 § 1 of the APC, it had to be discontinued.
Tomasz W. lodged a complaint with the Viovodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. The complainant asked for annulment of the decision of first and second instance. Tomasz W. claimed the violation of the substantive law, i.e. article 6(1) of the PPD, through its improper interpretation, of article 32(1) pt 7 and 8 of that Act, by recognizing that Tomasz W. is not entitled to request cessation of the processing of his data and the right to object, and a breach of article 7 of the APC by not explaining all the relvant facts. Tomasz W. disagreed with the statement of the GIODO that questioned information about his person is not personal data within the meaning of the PPD. He stated that any information about an identified or identifiable individual is personal data. Furthermore, he argued that the claim of the GIODO that the data are available only for specific people – registered users of the portal is not acceptable, because nasza-klasa.pl has no mechanisms for verification of users identity, which makes the questioned data easily accessible for everyone. Moreover, Tomasz W. also argued that a registered user who does not know him would have some difficulty in identifying his person but such obstacles would not happen to a person who knows about Tomasy W., and is looking for additional information.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 March 2009 case file II SA/Wa 1495/08 ruled that the GIODO erred in its decisions, because information about the name and surname of Tomasz W., combined with information about the name and address of the primary school and the determination of the class to which he attended in 1978/79, even if it was thirty years ago, are personal data. According to the Court provisions of article 1 of the PPD introduced the principle of autonomy of human information, meaning the protection of information about human being. This provision is a kind of emanation of the general right guaranteed by the Polish Constitution in article 47, according to which “Everyone shall have the right to legal protection of his private and family life, of his honour and good reputation and to make decisions about his personal life”. This means that the protection of personal data is related to the protection of privacy rights. This follows from the wording of article 6 of the PPD, indicating that the personal data concern identified or identifiable natural or legal person and that the identifiable is a person is one whose identity can be determined. From wording of that provisions the VAC concluded that personal data are data that identify a person’s identity. The VAC also relied on the content of recital 12 of the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, which emphasized the protection of all data relating to a person, and therefore also information about someones past.
(12) Whereas the protection principles must apply to all processing of personal data by any person whose activities are governed by Community law; whereas there should be excluded the processing of data carried out by a natural person in the exercise of activities which are exclusively personal or domestic, such as correspondence and the holding of records of addresses
However, in recital 26 of the abovementioned Directive states that data protection rules must apply to any information concerning an identified or identifiable person. In order to determine whether a person is identifiable, all the means which can be used by the controller or any other person to identify a person, should be taken into the account. The rules of data protection do not apply to data rendered anonymously in such a way that a subject of the data can not be identified. The identification of a given person concerns also past information about a specific human being, by which information one can learn about such person’s identity. Accordingly, the VAC held that European law means the protection of personal data as the protection of all the facts concerning the past of a particular person, which corresponds with the content of article 6(2) of the PDP. So this means that such data would also be protected. Referring to the foregoing facts of Tomasz W. case, the VAC ruled that that nasza-klasa.pl website published his image and name. In the opinion of the court these are the personal data which are protected by the PPD, because on their basis one is able to identify given person.
Nasza Klasa sp. z o.o. filed a cassation complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) challenging in entirety the judgment of the VAC. The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 18 November 2009, case file I OSK 667/09, rejected the complaint. The SAC held that the primary issue arising in this case was whether a classmates’ picture that was taken thirty years ago, at which Tomasz W. is potrayed, in the circumstances of the case, can be analyzed to determine his identity without necessarily involving excessive resources or time, and therefore, whether the data disclosed in the photo in question, constitutes personal data within the meaning of article 6 of the PPD, and whether it should be protected.
The concept of “personal data” on the Polish law includes any information concerning an individual if it is possible to define its identity and its identification. Personal data is a set of messages about a particular person such integrated that it allows for its individualization. It includes at least information necessary for identification (name, surname, place of residence), but this is not restricted, because it also include further information, strengthening the degree of identification. Such information will also include pictures of the individual, even if they were taken in the past, allowing to identify a person. In a situation where such a photograph is presented with a name and surname of the person portrayed, in a place accessible to an unlimited number of entities, it must be considered that it constitutes personal data subject to protection under the PPD. Mainly, the objective evaluation criteria decides for the qualification of given information as personal data, but it also should comprise of all information, including extralinguistic (context), to which third party may have or has an access. A different approach to the presented issues would maginalize the importance of the laws and it would not relate to its designated function.
Thus it should be considered that the image of Tomasz W. portrayed at the photograph that was taken 30 years ago, affixed with the class, his name and surname, and then published at nasz-klasa.pl website constitutes personal data within the meaning of article 6(2) of the PPD, and the cassation complaint was not justified. The SAC also noted that the consent for the processing of personal data cannot be in any way implied.
The SAC also stressed the fact the Internet as a source of information is increasing on a unknown scale and importance. It provides an access to specific information to a vast number of persons and allows for any of its processing within the meaning of the PPD. At the same time there are not yet developed appropriate mechanisms for the protection of individual rights when those rights have been violated as a result of the disclosure of information on the Internet. Then, it is a great role of law enforcement bodies, including the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection in creating practice to comply with applicable laws also on the Internet. It is an unacceptablr situation in which the entity seeks to remove its image from a particular website, and the administration fails to take action to ensure the protection of civil rights. The image is one of the very personal property rights and lack of consent to its publication, if it is not a public person, is a sufficient reason to believe that regulations of the PPD apply, if the conditions set in the article 6(2) of the PPD have been met. There is a legal sequel to this story. See “Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 1212/10“.
See also “Polish regulations on personal data protection” and “Polish case law on personal data protection“.
Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 1085/04
February 11th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiIn July 2003, the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) received a complaint in which a natural person, known as W.K. (personal data of the parties are removed from Polish courts’ judgments), requested the GIODO to issue an order to the Polish Internet company to reveal personal data of persons, against which the applicant wanted to initiate legal proceedings. The complaint showed that the online forum operated by the Internet company hosted defamatory content posted by persons using only nicknames.
W.K. proved that he had requested the Company to disclose full IP addresses of computers from which persons using only nicknames have sent messages to the online forum. The applicant also pointed out that the Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to determine the perpetrators of the alleged defamation. The refusal was also upheld by the District Prosecutor’s Office.
W.K. pointed out that he brought a private accusation based on article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments, to the Regional Court in K., against the persons who used given nicknames. The Court has issued an order in which it considered the private accusation legally ineffective because it included error in the form – i.e., no indication of names of defendants and their addresses, and W.K. did not clear these errors.
The GIODO has found that the purpose for which W.K. has applied for, i.e. the access to personal data, to assert his rights before the court, is legally justified. The use of these data by the applicant in the proceedings could not be considered as a violation of the rights and freedoms of persons whos personal data was collected because after the initiation of criminal or civil proceedings, personal data would be in a disposition the court.
The Company filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The Court in a judgment of 9 February 2005, case file II SA/Wa 1085/04, annulled the contested decision. The VAC held that the complaint was based on article 23(1) pt. 5 of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.
1. The processing of data is permitted only if:
5) processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interests pursued by the controllers or data recipients, provided that the processing does not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subject.
The court did not accept that the wording of this provision can be interpreted as a rule requiring a data controller to reveal personal data at the request of the person whose requested data does not concern. The basis for such claims available for third parties for purposes other than inclusion in the data collection, was provided in the article 29(1) and (2) of the PPD. This provision being in force until 1 May 2004, did not give rise to demand release of the data, if the controller/administrator of the data were private sector.
The Court also held that the imposition of the duty of the data controller can only be done when the information being available to the controller falls into the category of personal data as defined in article 6(1) of the PPD.
personal data shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.
The requested information related to IP addresses of computers from which the messages were posted by certain people using certain nicknames. The Company argued that it does not require users of its forum to identify themselves in order to post information, what causes that, the IT administration system of the portal website hosting different forums, registers only IP address of computers of persons using the system, and it does not produce other data for identifying the user of a forum. Only a request to the operator of the telecommunication network could lead to the identification of the computer which was connected to the server hosting the portal and its forums. The Court cited English and Polish comentators and found that information, that without extraordinary and disproportionate effort can be “linked” with a specific person, especially by using readily and widely available sources, also deserve credit for their category of personal data. The identifiable person is defined in article 6(2) of the Polish Act of August 29, 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of October 29, 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of July 6, 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.
2. An identifiable person is the one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his/her physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity.
3. A piece of information shall not be regarded as identifying where the identification requires an unreasonable amount of time, cost and manpower.
See also “Polish regulations on personal data protection” and “Polish case law on personal data protection“.
Industrial design, case II GSK 772/09
February 4th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw received two different complaints against the same decision of the Polish Patent Office on the invalidation of the right in registration. The Court decided on both complaints and issued the resolution of 16 April 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 443/09 the parties in this case were the PPO and a Polish joint-stock company from Bydgoszcz (legal entity), and the resolution of 23 June 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 715/09, the parties in this case were Jan Romanik (natural person) and the PPO. The VAC rejected the complaint in the second case and hold that there exist the identity between case VI SA/Wa 443/09 and VI SA/Wa 715/09. Jan Romanik brough a cassation complaint.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 December 2009 case file II GSK 772/09 ruled that the violation of law made by the VAC was based on a wrong assumption that the resolution case file VI SA/Wa 443/09 was related (the so-called “case sameness”) to VI SA/Wa 715/09, namely, because the case fell within the action between the same parties, which was the subject of the same decision of the Polish Patent Office. The SAC ruled that even if the natural person was the sole shareholder in the joint-stock company, both entities cannot be identified as one, because these are participants of legal transactions that are independent from each other and each of them acquire the rights and duties on its own behalf.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Łopata” (in English: shovel) Rp-9834. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
Pharmaceutical trade marks, case VI SA/Wa 844/09
February 2nd, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiOn 4 February 2004, the Polish company Przedsiębiorstwo Farmaceutyczne LEK-AM Sp. z o.o. from Zakroczym filed to the Polish Patent Office (PPO) a trademark application for word sign GESTROL Z-275787 for the goods in class 5, cancer drugs. In a decision of 11 April 2008 the PPO refused to grant the right of protection. The PPO found that GESTROL is similar to the earlier registered trade mark (with priority date of 6 February 2003) – GESTROLTEX R-192945 registered for BIOTON S.A. from Warsaw, for goods in class 5, pharmaceutical preparations. Article 132(2)(ii) 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 later amendments, served as the basis for the decision to refuse to grant a right of protection.
2. A right of protection for a trademark shall not be granted, if the trademark:
(…)
(ii) is identical or similar to a trademark for which a right of protection was granted or which has been applied for protection with an earlier priority date (provided that the latter is subsequently granted a right of protection) on behalf of another party for identical or similar goods, if a risk of misleading the public exists, in particular by evoking associations with the earlier mark,
LEK-AM filed a request for re-examination of the matter. The company argued that the sign applied for is intended to mark the anticancer drug. The active substance in this preparation is a chemical compound of the generic name (INN) megestrol. Under the decision of the Polish Minister of Health, GESTROL as a medicinal product received authorization for marketing. The Minister of Health has not found confusing similarity between GESTROL and GESTROLTEX. LEK-AM pointed out that both trade marks will be identified in the course of the highly specialized medical personnel. The PPO rejected the request and LEK-AM filed a complaint before the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw.
The Court in a judgment of 12 October 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 844/09, ruled that the recipient, to whom the association between the marks GESTROL and GESTROLTEX may arise, is not only a person who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, but it is also a person with high qualifications. Anticancer drugs are not bought and ordained without the intermediary of a doctor. For this reason, evaluation of other state administrative body, namely the Office for Registration of Medicinal Products, Medical Devices and Biocides and it is the ORMP who sets procedures and requirements for registration of signs for medicinal products, must be considered not only as a medical evaluation of the effects of the medication but also as the situation where the ORMP does not allow for the existence of two medicinal products with the same or similar name, which would prevent the identification of the product and the source of its origin at the medicinal products market. Of course, the court agreed with the PPO’s argument that the registration of the name of the medicinal product in the Office for Registration of Medicinal Products, Medical Devices and Biocidal Products at the Ministry of Health does not create an individual right to a specific drug name. Such a right exists from the time the right of protection for trademark is granted the IPL. It was obvious that the trade mark examination/registration proceedings before the PPO are independent of the proceedings before the ORMP, but it must be borne in mind that the earlier findings of one of the official bodies of Polish state cannot be neglected by another official body.
The VAC came to the conclusion that the contested decision of the PPO did not comply with the requirements of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, 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. According to article 107 §3 of the APC, the reasons for the administrative decision should include in particular: facts that the PPO considered proven, the evidence on which it relied and the reasons why the credibility of other evidence were denied the probative value, and the legal justification for the decision should be explain the legal basis for the decision, quoting the law. The VAC held the Polish Patent Office has not give sufficient reasons for, why it has refused to grant protection for a GESTROL trade mark.
The VAC annulled both contested decisions, and ruled them unenforceable. This judgment is not yet final. The party unsatisfied with the ruling may file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.
See also “Polish regulations on pharmaceutical trade marks” and “Polish case law on advertising of pharmaceuticals“.
Industrial design law, case II GSK 1034/08
January 20th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 17 June 2009 case file II GSK 1034/08 ruled that it is obvious that the Polish Patent Office should first examine whether there is a right for which the applicant files request for invalidation, then the PPO should examine the legal interest of the applicant, and only then it should consider whether the legal grounds for invalidity are well founded. If at the time of examination of the request for invalidation, that right at issue no longer exists, due to the fact that its earlier decision on the grant of such right has been annulled, any further action is unnecessary and inadmissible as irrelevant. The PPO should terminate the proceedings without examination of the legal interest of the applicant and without considering the merits of the grounds of law. The dispute between the parties does not start due to the lack of action and any arguments of any party are no longer considered by the PPO. In this situation, there is no “winner” or “loser” because the merits of the request are not subject to examinations.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Opakowanie zwłaszcza na lody” (in English: Package especially for ice creams), Rp-9476. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
Administrative, civil and criminal proceedings in trade mark cases in Poland
December 22nd, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiI. The Law
The main sources of binding laws in the Republic of Poland are the Constitution of 2 April 1997, acts passed by the Parliament, ratified international treaties and regulations issued, for example, by the Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers – Polish government. Regulations are issued for the purpose of implementation of acts. The main legal acts on trade mark protection in the Republic of Poland are the following.
I.A. Substantive law
- 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.
- Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, 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.
- Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments
I.B. Procedural law
- Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, 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.
- Act on proceedings before administrative courts – PBAC – (in Polish:Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi) of 30 August 2002, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270, with subsequent amendments.
- Civil Proceedings Code – CPC (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 43, item 296, with subsequent amendments
- Criminal Proceedings Code – CRPC – (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Karnego) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 89, item 555, with subsequent amendments.
- Act on Patent Attorneys – APAT – (in Polish: ustawa o rzecznikach patentowych) of 11 April 2001, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 49, item 509, with subsequent amendments,
I.C. EU law
Since 1 May 2004 which was the accession day to the EU, the Republic of Poland has been bound by all aquis communitaire including the Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR). The CTMR is a part of the Polish Legal system and is directly aplicable by Polish Courts, especially by the Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs (in Polish: Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie Wydział XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych).
II. Different routes, different proceedings
The right of protection for a sign being capable to be registered as a trade mark is granted by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (PPO). Trade mark holders in the Republic of Poland may protect their rights in civil and criminal proceedings. Moreover, they may also use the procedures before customs authorities.
The Republic of Poland is not a common law country and the courts are not bound by decisions of other courts. However Polish judges tend to widely recognise the decisions and verdicts of the Polish Courts of Appeal and the Polish Supreme Court. Only resolutions of the Supreme Court that are decided as a legal principle are universally binding. The decisions of foreign bodies such as the General Court and Court of Justice of EU may be recognised only as so-called persuasive precedents.
II. A. Administrative proceedings in trade mark cases
The Patent Office of the Republic of Poland is a central government agency responsible inter alia for receiving and examination of applications seeking protection for trade marks and deciding in matters related to granting rights of protection trade marks (decisions with regard to processing of national and International trade mark applications, decisions on the invalidation and the lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark etc.). The provisions of the Code of Administrative Proceedings shall apply accordingly to litigation procedure before the Patent Office in cases not regulated by the IPL. Decisions made or orders issued by the PPO are liable to complaint lodged to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. Judgments made by the VAC may be a subject of a cassation complaint filed before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).
II. B. Civil proceedings in trade mark cases
Trade mark infringement actions are brought before a District Court. There are no specific courts which have exclusive jurisdiction for resolving trade mark disputes, except the Court for Community Trade Marks and Community Designs which is strictly focused on the legal issues related to CTMs.
The Law on Industrial Property provides that a trademark owner’s rights will be deemed to have been infringed where there has been unlawful use of the mark in the course of trade, including unauthorized use of a trademark by a licensee and sublicensee. The remedies available to the trademark owner are as follows:
- cessation of the infringement,
- surrender of any unlawfully obtained profits,
- compensatory damages in accordance with the relevant principles of the Civil Code or payment of a lump sum equivalent to a licence fee, or any other remuneration, which would have been due if the infringer had been authorized by the right holder to use the trademark. In this case, the trademark owner is obliged to prove that an intentional infringement of its rights has taken place,
- announcement to the public of a verdict of the court (upon the request of a trade mark owner) as a whole or in part, or publication of information regarding the verdict,
- a court order that the infringer (upon its own request, in case of unintentional infringement) to pay the relevant sum to the benefit of the trade mark owner if the cessation of infringement or forfeiture of the goods held by the infringer (means of manufacturing, materials) would be excessive, and the above-mentioned sum to be paid would fulfil the right holder’s interest.
The following cases, in particular, are also decided in civil law proceedings in accordance with the general principles of law:
- for ascertainment of the authorship of an inventive project,
- for ascertainment of the right to a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration,
- for remuneration for the exploitation of an inventive project,
- for remuneration for the exploitation of an invention, a utility model or a topography for state purposes,
- for compensation for the transfer to the State Treasury of a right to a patent for a secret invention or to a right of protection for a secret utility model, a right of protection or a right in registration,
- for infringement of a patent, a supplementary protection right, a right of protection or a right in registration,
- for ascertainment of the right to exploit an invention, a utility model or an industrial design in the cases referred to in Articles 71 and 75 of the IPL,
- for ascertainment of the right to use, in a local-scale activity, a mark registered on behalf of a third party as a trademark,
- for ascertainment of the right to use a geographical indication,
- for ascertainment of the loss of the right to use a geographical indication,
- for the transfer of a patent, a right of protection for a utility model or a right in registration of an industrial design or a topography obtained by a person not entitled thereto,
- for the transfer of a right of protection for a trad emark in the case referred to in Article 161 of the IPL.
II. C. Criminal proceedings in trade mark cases
The IPL defines counterfeit trademarks as identical trademarks illegally used or trade marks which in the course of trade can not be distinguished from the trade marks registered for the goods covered by the right of protection. The party aggrieved by the infringement has to commence a criminal action. Only after the filing of the motion can the proceedings be started and continued ex officio. The sole exception is when a person committing the crime in respect of a registered trade mark obtains permanent profits from its criminal activity or commits acts resulting in the turnover of counterfeit goods bearing the trade mark, which are of significant value. In such case the infringer is subject to more serious criminal penalties and proceedings will be started ex officio.
II. D. Custom seizures
Customs law, in addition to civil and criminal law, is the third administrative regime of protection for trade mark rights. Provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property are directly aplicable on the territory of the Republic of Poland. The application for action shall be submitted to the Polish Customs Chamber seated at Modlińska 4 Street, 03-216 Warsaw.
II. E. ADR in trade mark cases
Where a domain name including a sign that has been registered as a trade mark by an unauthorized third party, the trade mark holder can use mediation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings or civil court action to obtain the cancellation or transfer of such a domain. See also “Polish case law on domain names“.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 1011/09
November 25th, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 June 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1731/08 ruled that while examining the violations of the rules of social coexistence, the Polish Patent Office must take into account also the subjective elements, which means that on existence of the conditions referred to in Article 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, may decide certain actions of the trade mark applicant, especially when these actions are characterized by offending behavior.
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;
This judgment concerned the invalidation proceedings of ecard R-150521 trade mark owned by Firstcove Technology Limited from Dublin. The VAC held also the right to company’s name (firm) is created at the time, when the order of entry into the commercial register is issued. However, the fact that information on the formation of a specific company was made publicly available, the issuance of which is required by law, should also be taken into account. This argument must be considered by the PPO in the assessment of allegations of violation of Article 8(2) of the TMA. The cassation complaint was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 November 2010 case file II GSK 1011/09.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1302/09
November 15th, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiThe Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for “METAL-CHEM” R-138491 trade mark in part for goods in Class 7. The owner Przedsiębiorstwo Wdrażania Postępu Technicznego METAL-CHEM Spółka z o.o. from Gliwice filed a complaint against this decision, claiming inter alia that the PPO refrained from taking evidence from expert witness with regard to homegenity of the goods.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1302/09 upheld the contested decision and ruled that the Adjudicative Board of the PPO, consisting of experts and the deciding cases in litigation proceedings may under the Article 84 § 1 of the APC appoint an experts witness to establish the facts on which the Patent Office has doubts, while the knowledge of the Board members is not sufficient.
Article 84
§ 1. If a case requires specialist information, a public administration body may consult an expert or experts for an opinion.
§ 2. An expert shall be excluded from proceedings on the basis of the rules set out in Article 24. The provisions regarding the hearing of witnesses shall also apply to experts.
It follows that the use of an experts witness should be incidental in nature as it was already discussed in by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 October 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1075/06. Thus the PPO has the right but not the obligation, to refer to any opinion and it is also indicated by the optional nature of Article 84 § 1 of the APC. The PPO as a specialized authority that grants rights of protection for trade marks and other industrial property rights under the rule of law, is the only body that verifies under litigation proceedings, whether or not the exclusive right of protection for trademark meets statutory requirements. In this case, the task of the Board was the correct assessment of the similarity of the goods contained in the opposing trade marks, in which both parties used the terms in which the general range of meaning was available and is not misleading.
Patent law, case VI SA/Wa 2279/08
October 27th, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 May 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2279/08 ruled that the Polish Patent Office is not an authority that mechanically approves patents granted by the EPO. The Court held that if the dispute between the applicant and the Polish Patent Office related to the nature of the invention, as is was in this case, by refusing to grant a patent, the Patent Office in principle cannot merely on its own conviction as to the subject of the patent application. The PPO should seek to gather sufficient evidence to support its position. Such evidence could include witness-expert testimony. The absence of a comprehensive hearing of evidence and basing the questioned decisions mostly on its own belief in the recognition, what is the subject of the patent application, and such a situation took place in this case, justified the infringement of Articles 7, 77 § 1 and Article 107 § 3 of the APC, as having a significant impact on the outcome of the case.
Article 7
Public administration bodies shall uphold the rule of law during proceedings and shall take all necessary steps to clarify the facts of a case and to resolve it, having regard to the public interest and the legitimate interests of members of the public.(…)
Article 77.
§ 1. The public administration body is required to comprehensively collect and examine all evidential material.
§ 2. At each stage of proceedings a body can amend, supplement or withdraw rulings made regarding the examination of evidence.
§ 3. An body conducting proceedings as a result of having been required to do so by the body having jurisdiction to settle the case (Article 52) may, on an ex officio basis or on application by one of the parties, hear new witnesses or experts on circumstances that form the objects of such proceedings.
§ 4. Universally accepted facts and facts known to the body ex officio do not require proof. Parties to proceedings should be informed of facts that are known to the body.(…)
Article 107.
§ 1. A decision should contain: the name of the public administration body, the date of issue, the name(s) of the party or parties, the legal authority referred to, a ruling, a factual and legal justification, an advisory notice as to whether and how an appeal may be brought and the signature, name and position of the person authorised to issue the decision. Any decision which may be challenged by a petition to the civil court or a complaint to the administrative court should contain an advisory notice that such a petition or complaint may be brought.
§ 2. Other regulations may contain other elements which a decision should contain.
§ 3. The factual justification of the decision should contain the facts that the body regards as proven, the evidence relied upon and the reasons for which other evidence has been treated as not authentic and without probative force. The legal justification should contain the legal authority for the decision with reference to the relevant law.
§ 4. If the decision fully reflects the demands of the party then there is no need to provide a justification for the decision, but this does not apply to decisions in contentious cases and decisions given on appeal.
§ 5. A body can also dispense with a justification of a decision in such cases if under current statutory regulations there is a possibility of dispensing with or limiting the justification because of the interests of State security or public order.
The Court ruled that the PPO should make a thorough analysis of the concept of “technical character of the invention” and should indicate why it interprets it very narrowly, taking in this respect the view of the EPO. The PPO should also consider whether the European patent has been granted for the same solution, and examine the merits of different assessment of the invention in Poland. During the re-hearing of the case the PPO will will take the position whether the applied solution has been sufficiently disclosed, and if so, only then will further examine its patentability, given that one of the elements of assessing the patentability of the invention is a technical solutions. Due to the lack of legal definition of a “solution of a technical nature” in assessing a technical nature of the present invention the PPO is obliged to indicate what in the opinion of the PPO is deemed as “technical solution”. The PPO will assess the technical nature of the claimed invention and will refer to the applicant’s arguments, if the interpretation of that concept made by the PPO would continue to differ on how this concept is understood to the applicant.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1144/08
October 17th, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 25 September 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1144/08, published in LEX under the no. 513878, held that the descriptiveness of a trade mark is the sole and direct information which indicates the characteristic of the goods. The signs are not deemed as descriptive if in only through indirect conclusion can be considered as a determination of such features. This case concerned the examinations proceedings of the trade mark telepizzeria Z-284471 that was applied for by the Polish company BONO A. MAZUREK Spółka Jawna for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 43.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 1022/08
September 11th, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 19 June 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 278/08 dismissed a complaint on the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the refusal to grant the right of protection for “clim PUR” Z-270334 trade mark applied for the goods in class 3. VALEO SERVICE société par actions simplifiée filed a cassation complaint.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 June 2009 case file II GSK 1022/08 held that the Court is not alone entitled to precise (supplement or refine) of the allegations included in the cassation complaint, or making hypotheses in this regard, sanctioning so to say its deficiencies. The interpretation of the scope and direction of a complaint is also not permissible, because the cassation appeal should be drafted in a such way that there would be no questions of its interpretation.