Polish IP & IT law » Polish Patent Office

Archive for: Polish Patent Office

Trade mark law, case Sp. 334/05

July 30th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 1 March 2004, the Polish Patent Office registered word-figurative trade mark CZUWAJ R-152214 (in English: “Be Prepared”). Związek Harcerstwa Polskiego – Główna Kwatera is the owner. The sign looks exactly the same as the Scouts Cross.

The final design of Scout’s Crass was approved during ZHP’s unification conference held on October 1-2 1918 which has choosen this sign as the official badge of Polish scouting In November 1918 the Polish Ministry of War decreed that the Krzyż Harcerski was the only civilian emblem that might be worn on military uniforms. The tradition continues to this day.

Nowadays, there are three major scouting organizations in Poland. Związek Harcerstwa Polskiego, Związek Harcerstwa Rzeczypospolitej and Stowarzyszenia Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza.

Krzyż harcerski

ZHR filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection. The request was based on provisions of 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 later amendments.

A trademark shall not be registrable if:
1) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence,

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 on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments, provides more stricter regulations against registering such signs.

Article 131
1. Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs:

(…)

(ii) that are contrary to law, public order or morality, or

(…)

2. A right of protection shall not be granted for a sign, if:
(i) it has been applied for protection with the Patent Office in bad faith,
(ii) it incorporates the name or abbreviated name of the Republic of Poland, or its symbols (emblem, national colours or national anthem), the names or armorial bearings of Polish voivodships, towns or communities, the insignia of the armed forces, paramilitary organisations or police forces, reproductions of Polish decorations, honorary distinctions or medals, military medals or military insignia, or other official or generally used distinctions and medals, in particular those of government administration, local self-administration or social organisations performing activities in vital public interests, where these organisations’ activities extend to the entire territory of the State or to a substantial part thereof, unless the applicant is able to produce evidence of his right, in particular in a form of an authorisation issued by a competent State agency or a permission given by an organisation, to use the sign in the course of trade,

(…)

(v) it incorporates elements being symbols, in particular of a religious, patriotic or cultural nature whose use could hurt religious feelings, sense of patriotism or national tradition,

The Polish Patent Office in its decision case file Sp. 334/05 invalidated the right of protection. The PPO ruled that all Polish scouts’ organizations should have the right to use this sign.

This judgment is not yet final. A complaint may be filed to the Voivodeship Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 808/10

July 28th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its order of 28 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 808/10 ruled that according to article 143 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, the Polish Patent Office shall publish a trademark application immediately after the expiration of three months from the date of filing of that application. As from the date of publication any third parties may acquaint themselves with the trademark determined in the application and with the list of the goods for which the mark is intended. They may also submit to the PPO their observations as to the existence of grounds that may cause a right of protection to be denied. Therefore, anyone has the right to submit comments to a trade mark application, but filing such comments does not make someone a party to the examination proceedings. These observations are only material that will be taken into consideration when examining the trade mark application

The VAC also noted that according to article 246 of the IPL any person may give reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection within six months from the publication in “Wiadomości Urzędu Patentowego” of the mention of the grant of a title of protection, and according to article 164 of the IPL, the right of protection for a trademark may be invalidated in whole or in part at the request of any person having a legitimate interest therein, provided that that person is able to prove that the statutory requirements for the grant of that right have not been satisfied. In such cases, the person is a party to the proceedings. This case concerned Gobired trade mark R-222675 owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowo-Usługowe MAREL PLUS Leszek Marcinowski from Gdańsk.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 134/10

June 27th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administratve Court in Warsaw in its order of 16 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 134/10 held that the principle of filing a complaint in the administrative proceedings through a public authority/body means that in case of a complaint filed directly to the administrative court or through a public authority other than the one whose action or inaction is the subject of the complaint, that court or authority should hand on such complaint to the competent authority of public administration. The deadline to bring an action referred to in article 53 § (1-3) of the PBAC, is decided on the date when the complaint was delivered to the relevant court or public administration body by the public authority who received it first.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Patent law, case VI SA/Wa 327/10

May 27th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative court in its judgment of 28 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 327/10 held that the Polish Patent Office should provide translation into Polish of documents that were allowed as evidence in administrative proceedings. Such conclusions stem from the Act of 7 October 1999 on the Polish language published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 1999 No 90 item 999. The authority/body provides official actions of public administration in the Polish language. The aforementioned act obliges the authority to make foreign language translation of the document. The examination of the contents of the document should be conducted in Polish, the one and only official language of the Polish administrative proceedings. Only then one can say that the procedural step, which consists of taking evidence from a document written in a foreign language, has been carried out correctly. The constitutional principle, which is reflected in rules of the Act on the Polish language, provides that the official language of the Republic of Poland is Polish and it requires that the documents being major evidence that affects the outcome of the administrative case, has been translated into Polish. Only then will it be possible to assess the accuracy of the examination of the content of such document.

Polish patent attorneys – authentication of documents

April 25th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

According to articles 76a § 2, 3 and 4 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, 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.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 344/09

April 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of the history described in my 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.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Patent law, case VI SA/Wa 906/09

March 18th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in a judgment of 15 November 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 906/09 ruled that the scope of the European patent is the same as in the case of a national patent granted, and the case law of individual member states presents different approaches to the examination of the patentability of inventions using computer software. Article 27 of the PCT cannot be treated as a ban on the use of individual interpretation to assess the patentability of the invention for the protection of which one is applying. Article 27(5) of the PCT provides that the contracting States have flexibility in setting the conditions for patentability.

In this case, the PPO exhaustively referred to the fact of the grant of an European patent for the questioned invention and indicated the reasons for which it did not grant patent rights in Poland. Undoubtedly for the VAC, it was hard not to notice the importance of the referral by the President of the European Patent Office (EPO), to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO on the fundamental issues relating to the interpretation of articles 52 EPC in relation to computer programs. See case G 3/08, application filed on 22 October 2008. The questions asked by Alison Brimelow reflect the concerns and divergent interpretations which source is located in the line of EPO case law aiming to over-extend the concept of “patentability of inventions”. At the date of hearing of the case the mentioned referral was not considered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO. Therefore, the unified position on the examination of the patentability of inventions using computer programs/software, which could be addressed by Member bound by EPC, did not exist yet. Given the above, the VAC held that the complaint should be dismissed because it did not include proper basis.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

See also my post entitled “Patent law, case VI SA/Wa 2566/08“.

More on the law of prägnanz in Polish judgments

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.

Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1938/09

March 5th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is a sequel to a story described in “Trade mark law, case Sp. 10/08“. In July 2009, the Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for DAKAR R-174205 trade mark (registered for goods in classes 3, 27, 37), after considering the case on the basis of rich evidence supplied by both parties.

The PPO recognized inter alia the special nature of the opposed trade mark DAKAR IR-606861 (registered for goods in classes 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 41), which in addition to its traditional function of determining the origin of goods, is also the name of the famous rally raid. In explaining its position, the PPO used arguments on a function of a trade mark known as the “merchandising function” and cited D. Keeling, Intellectual Property Rights in EU Law: Free movement and competition law, Oxford, 2003. When examining the circumstances of the case, the PPO concluded that DAKAR IR-606861 trade mark is a reputed one. The PPO pointed to the existing methods for assessing the reputation – the absolute and relative. The first method takes primarily into account the percentage of a certain degree of knowledge of the trade mark on the market (as established by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 August 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 757/07). The relative method, in addition to knowledge of the trade mark, emphasizes other criteria, including market share in terms of quantity and value of goods sold, the scope and length of the advertising of the product marked with the sign, territorial and temporal scope of the use of the trade mark, licenses granted, the quality of the goods, the value of a sign in the assessment of independent financial institutions, the size of the expenditure incurred in connection with the promotion of the trade mark and the relationship to the price of substitute goods. Public opinion polls, prizes and awards, publications, press releases, rankings, reports, invoices and other business records, and various promotional materials can serve as evidence. The PPO cited the judgment of the COJ of 14 September 1999 in C 375/97, General Motors Corporation, the judgment of Supreme Administrative Court of 21 November 2006, case file II GSK 181/06 and the decision of OHIM of 25 April 2001 in case R 283/1999-3. See also my post entitled “Poland: proving the fame of a trade mark“.

When referring to the transfrontier nature of the reputation of a trade mark as adopted in the judgment of the VAC in Warsaw of 8 November 2005 case file VI SA/Wa 845/05 (VALENTINO) or in the judgment of the VAC of 13 March 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1626/05 (LEXUS), the PPO found that the Paris-Dakar rally, although it takes place outside the Polish borders, has many fans, as evidenced by the data on viewing TV programs on the rally – from 550000 to over 1200000 people, which according to the PPO, proved a high popularity. When deciding on the unfair advantage, the Polish Patent Office found that in this case, the Polish company will be able to count on the positive reaction of customers without spending too much money on the promotions, because they will buy the goods by associating them with the sign of the French company and consequently with the rally organized by this company.

The Polish company DAKAR from Krasne filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. The VAC in a jugment of 29 December 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1938/09, ruled that the word Dakar also means the capital city of Senegal, and such argument escaped PPO’s attention during the analysis of all the facts and evidence gathered. In this aspect this sign also fulfills political and economic role. Therefore, the name of Dakar has long been known as an exotic name of the city and it should not be attributed exclusively to one company.

The VAC anulled the Polish Patent Office’s decision and decided that the decision was not subject to execution. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Poland: differences in pharmaceutical trade marks

February 17th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 4 June 2002, the Polish entrepreneur Wojciech Soszyński from Sopot applied to the Polish Patent Office for the right of protection for OCERIN Z-251142 trade mark in class 5 for goods such as oral pharmaceutical preparations in a form of granulate, drops, capsules, emulsion, herbal blends, pastes, pills, powder, syrup, suspensions, gels, pharmaceutical preparations for mouthwashingin a form of aerosol, chewing gum, capsules, concentrate, drops, pills, pastes, liquids, powder, tablets, suspensions, gels, pharmaceutical preparations for dental purposes in a form of emulsion, paste, liquids, powder, tablets, suspensions, gels, pharmaceutical preparations for inhalation purposes in a form of aerosol, emulsion, gas, ointments, liquid, powder, tablet, suspension, gels, trachea and lung pharmaceutical preparations in a form of powder, solution, suspension, pharmaceutical preparations for skin care applied on skin and percutaneous in a form of medicated bath supplements, emulsion, cataplasm, collodion, concentrate, cream, ointment, dressing, paste, foam, plaster, liquids, powder, shampoo, suspension, gels, pharmaceutical preparations for eyes in a form of drops, creams, ointments, liquids, drops solvent, vaginal pharmaceutical preparations in a form of pills, tampons, vaginal douching suspensions, gels, powder, solvents for gel preparation, rectal pharmaceutical preparations in a form of suppositories, emulsion, capsules, concentrates, creams, ointments, foams, liquids, tablets, tampons, suspensions, gels, vesica and urethra pharmaceutical preparations in a form of washing liquids, powder for liquid preparation, gels, pharmaceutical preparations for ears in a form of aerosol-emulsion, solutions, suspensions, creams, drops, ointments, liquids, powders, rods, tampons, gels, pharmaceutical preparations for nose in a form of aerosol-suspension, liquids, drops, ointments, powders, rods, vaginal pharmaceutical preparations in a form of emulsion for irrigation, intravaginal tablets, intravaginal capsules, intravaginal creams, intravaginal ointments, intravaginal foams.

The Polish Patent Office (PPO) in decision of 21 July 2008 refused to grant a right of protection. The PPO noted that BEIERSDORF AG from Hamburg reported observations as to the existence of grounds that may cause a right of protection to be denied. BEIERSDORF AG argued that OCERIN is similar to its EUCERIN IR 710661 trade mark applied for with the priority of 3 March 1999 for goods in class 5 such as cosmetics for medical purposes prepared in the form of creams, gels and lotions, all for the protection of dry skin, dermatologic preparations for prevention of allergy and skin ills, medical preparations for care, washing and beauty of hair, medical preparations for shower and bath purposes, medical sun tanning preparations, medical preparations against aging of skin, prevention skin preparations against UV radiation, and another word-figurative trade mark EUCERIN IR 765927.

The PPO found that the greater part of the opposed signs is identical and differs only in the beginning. Taking into account the specificity of goods in Class 5, the consumer may think that this is a variation of a single product or products with a similar purpose. It cannot be excluded that the consumer will shift the similarity (in the core and the ending of a sign) to the origin of goods, nor that differences in the beginning of a sign, will be shifted to the differences between the products, rather than differences in terms of their origin. Thus, in both cases, the signs causes the consumer the confusion as to the origin of goods.

The PPO also noted that both signs have no particular meaning in the Polish language. Consumers may try, or not, to give them some meaning. The PPO pointed out that it is very often in the market of pharmaceuticals that endings of signs or whole signs refer to the active substances. However, the average recipient has no knowledge of chemistry and pharmacy. Therefore, one may not know what components produce the substance or whether they are derivatives, and how it translates on the naming. The similarity of words is all, what is available to consumers and on such basis, they have to decide on the origin of goods. A large part of products listed in both lists of goods are those that are available without any prescription, and thus the support of pharmacist during its purchase cannot always be assumed. These products are also offered in hypermarkets and drugstores, where you cannot always count on the help of a sales assistant. But even if the pharmacist may give an advice on the composition of a product, it still does not determine the lack of the association between entrepreneurs. The assumption on the association between entrepreneurs should be concluded from minor differences in signs or other indications on the packaging and labeling, and such a situation, while comparing the signs, cannot be presumed, since the mark must indicate the origin of the goods itself.

The complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw was brought by Oceanic S.A., legal successor of Wojciech Soszyński’s trade mark application. The VAC in a judgment of 7 October 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1176/09, ruled that the risk of misleading the public as to the origin of goods decides whether the two signs are similar. The questions does not concern a personified trader/entrepreneur but it is all about the sign which has always to mark and indicate that the goods originate exclusively from the same trader. The unacceptable misleading of public as to the origin of goods is created by the similarity of goods and the similarity of signs.

Therefore, any doubts should be decided in favor of the proprietor of the trade mark with an earlier priority. This rule is a consequence of the belief that the entrepreneur who, for the same type of goods, chooses a sign that is similar to the trade mark with earlier priority, acts at its own risk and all uncertainty should be decided against him. A comparison of the lists of goods for EUCERIN and OCERIN trade marks indicates that these goods are similar. In the midst of these products are both cosmetics and pharmaceutical preparations of cosmetic and medicinal characteristics.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

See also my posts entitled “Polish regulations on pharmaceutical trade marks” and “Polish case law on advertising of pharmaceuticals“.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1715/09

February 16th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, in a judgment of 10 January 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 1715/09, ruled that the registration proceedings is not a source of the entitlement to a trade mark, but it only provides specified changes in the Trade Mark Register with regard to the holder of that right and therefore it is totally different from proceeding related to the invalidation or declaration on the lapse of a trade mark. The standing in registration proceeding cannot be justified based on the same arguments, that were used in the course of proceedings, which aimed to resolve trade mark rights.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Industrial design, case II GSK 772/09

February 4th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw received two different complaints against the same decision of the Polish Patent Office (PPO) 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 to the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC in a decision 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.

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.
Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-9834

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Pharmaceutical trade marks, case VI SA/Wa 844/09 – GESTROL is not always similar to GESTROLTEX

February 2nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 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 my posts entitled “Polish regulations on pharmaceutical trade marks” and “Polish case law on advertising of pharmaceuticals“.

Polish regulations on pharmaceutical trade marks

February 1st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

I. 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.

I.A. Substantive law

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, defines the requirements for obtaining trademark protection in the Republic of Poland. There are related regulations that are issued for the purpose of implementation of the IPL.
The Polish 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 later amendments.
The Polish Act on Pharmaceutical Law – PHL – (in Polish: ustawa prawo famraceutyczne) of 6 September 2001, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2008, No 45, item 271, with later amendments, defines pharmaceutical/medicinal product. Of course, there are several related regulations to the PHL and the case-law of Polish courts. The PHL is almost entirely based on EU principles.

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 later amendments.
Civil Proceedings Code – CPC (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 43, item 296, with later 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. Case law
See “Polish case law on advertising of pharmaceuticals“.

I.D. EU law
Moreover, all EU regulations and the judgements of the Court of Justice (COJ) of European Union relating to pharmaceutical issues are directly applicable in the Republic of Poland.

II. National bodies and procedures concerning pharmaceutical trade marks
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), while the Polish Ministry of Health controls the registration process and approval procedure for medicinal products. Registration of signs for medicinal products is governed by the procedure and requirements set by the Office for Registration of Medicinal Products, Medical Devices and Biocidal Products (ORMP), a government agency competent for the evaluation of the quality, efficacy and safety of medicinal and biocidal products, as well as medical devices.

The Main Pharmaceutical Inspector (MPI) is the central organ of public administration, executing her/his duties with the assistance of the Main Pharmaceutical Inspectorate and the MPI is authorized to ensure compliance with pharmaceutical regulations in the context of advertising. Main Pharmaceutical Inspector is the appeal institution in matters connected with executing tasks and competences of Pharmaceutical Inspection (the institution of second instance with regard to decisions of the provincial pharmaceutical inspector). Appeals against MPI’s decisions are filed before the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. Further appeal should be brought in the form of a cassation complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).

An entity seeking to produce or import medicinal products must file an application for approval with the Inspectorate. The application must specify the medicinal name of the product and any other commonly used names (INN).

III. Names of medicinal products and trademarks
A trade mark under the Polish law can be any sign capable of being represented graphically, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of other undertaking. The following, in particular, may be considered as trademarks: words, designs, ornaments, combinations of colours, the three-dimensional shape of goods or of their packaging, as well as melodies or other acoustic signals. Rights of protection will not be granted for signs which are a subject of absolute or relative grounds for refusal.

A medicinal product is defined as a substance or mixture of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in humans or animals, or given to make the diagnosis or to restoring, improving or modifying physiological functions through the pharmacological, immunological or metabolic effect. The the provisions of the PHL also apply to products that meet the criteria for both medicinal product and another type of product, in particular dietary supplement or cosmetic (as defined by separate regulations).

Pharmaceutical trade marks not only need to comply with the provisions of the IPL, but also need to meet the requirements regarding names of pharmaceutical products contained in the PHL. Pursuant to these regulations, a pharmaceutical name can be:

an invented name, as long as it does not cause confusion with a common name (i.e., an international non-proprietary name (INN) recommended by the World Health Organization or, if such name has not been attributed to a given product, a common chemical name) or
a common, or scientific name accompanied by a trademark, a company name or the name of the marketing authorization holder.

Obtaining an authorization for the release of a medicinal product under a given name does not exempt an entity from liability if the name violates third-party trademark rights. Applicants must therefore also keep in mind the provisions of the IPL and the CUC.

An announcement of the president of the ORMP issued on March 12 2008 gives further guidance on the process of naming medicinal products and the substitution of names that have already been granted. It sets out the following instructions:
- The new name of a medicinal product should differ from an earlier registered product name in at least three letters and the new name cannot include a sequence of more than two of the same letters. An applicant is required to provide a justified written statement when seeking a waiver from these rules.
- The new name cannot result in the likelihood of confusion (in print, spelling and pronunciation) with an earlier registered name.
- Signs such as ® and ™ cannot form part of the new name.
- The name of a medicinal product cannot contain personal names and surnames, including the name of the inventor. Further, it must not contain:
1. Names of abstract persons that are used together with scientific titles, aliases or pseudonyms.
2. Expressions which bring to mind religious, geographical or historical associations.
3. Names of natural objects.
4. Obscene words or words suggesting obscene content.
- The name of the medicinal product must also be placed on the packaging in the Braille system.

The evidence of registration of a medicinal product name with the ORMP can act as evidence of use of the sign as at that date when attempting to protect the name as an industrial property right.

IV. Parallel imports and repackaging
Parallel importation into Poland of a pharmaceutical product from other EU member states or members of the European Economic Area (EEA) is acceptable provided that it meets all of the following conditions:

The parallel-imported medicinal product must have the same active ingredient(s) as the product authorized for marketing in the territory of the Republic of Poland (i.e., the same indications at least up to the third level of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) or the ATC veterinary.
The parallel-imported product must have the same strength and administration route as the authorized product, as well as the same or similar form. Slight differences in form cannot lead to any therapeutic differences between the products.
Where the product authorized for marketing in Poland is a brand name pharmaceutical, the parallel import must also be the brand name product. Similarly, where the authorized product is a generic, the parallel-imported pharmaceutical must also be a generic.

A parallel importation licence is available on application to the Polish Health Minister. The licence is issued on the basis of an assessment report prepared by the president of the ORMP. The application must include a sample of the packaging and the product information leaflets. A licence is granted for a period of five years.

According to article 21a(9) of the PHL, a parallel importer is allowed place the pharmaceutical product on the market in the Republic of Poland under:

the name used in Poland,
the name used in the EU/EEA member state of origin, or
the common name (INN) or scientific name together with the trademark or name of the parallel importer.

A parallel importer intending to put a medical product on the Polish market must inform the holder of the marketing authorization in Poland as to the expected date of entry onto the market at least 30 days before such date.

In order to place a product on the market, the parallel importer must alter the packaging thereof to adhere to local standards. The packaging must comply with that approved in the import licence. Polish authorities generally require the repackaging of parallel-imported medical products into new boxes that contain informational leaflets for patients in Polish. The informational leaflet must also be consistent with the parallel import licence.

The first parallel-imported medical products were placed on the Polish market in November 2005. As of the end of March 2008, over 200 parallel import licences had been granted in Poland.

The process of repackaging frequently causes disputes between parallel importers and mark owners. However, there is no case law in Poland with regard to this issue at present.

V. Anti-counterfeiting and enforcement
The responsibility for combating the trade and distribution of counterfeit medicines in Poland falls on the bodies responsible for the prosecution of crime – the Police, the Custom Service (detection and seizure of imported counterfeit medicines) and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. According to the official data published by the Ministry of Finance, 1,356 counterfeit packages of medicine were seized at the Polish borders in 2007, while 1,700 packages were seized within the first three months of 2008. According to the Main Pharmaceutical Inspectorate, 99% of medicines offered for sale from illegal sources are counterfeit and are hazardous to life or health.

VI. Advertising of pharmaceutical products
The PHL sets out the requirements for advertising pharmaceutical products in Poland. The advertising of medicinal product has also to be made in accordance with the current Regulation of the Minister of Health on the advertising of medicinal products of 21 November 2008, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 210 item 1327. Advertising a medicinal product shall mean any activity consisting in informing about and encouraging to use the medicinal product, with the purpose of increasing the number of prescriptions, delivery, sale or consumption of the medicinal product.

Among others, the following activities are seen as advertising of pharmaceutical products:

Advertising of pharmaceutical products addressed to the public,
Advertising of pharmaceutical products addressed to individuals authorized to issue prescriptions or involved in the distribution of pharmaceutical products,
The visiting by sales or medical representatives of individuals authorized to issue prescriptions or involved in the distribution of pharmaceutical products,
The provision of pharmaceutical product samples,
Sponsoring promotional meetings for individuals authorized to issue prescriptions or involved in the distribution of pharmaceutical products
and
Sponsoring scientific conferences, meetings and congresses for individuals authorized to issue prescriptions or involved in the trade of pharmaceutical products.

It should note that the Polish legislature did not apply the correct legislative techniques and thus the PHL includes different concepts with different contents of which makes a mess of the legal terminology. It is also the problem of the European legislator because the same problem also applies to article 86 of the Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.

Pharmaceutical products may be advertised exclusively by the parties responsible for the products or by persons who have been commissioned by such parties.

An advertisement for a pharmaceutical product cannot be misleading. It should present the product objectively and inform about its rational use. Further, the following types of advertising are prohibited:

Advertising offering or promising any advantages in a direct or indirect manner in return for purchasing the product, or providing any evidence of having purchased the product.
Advertising addressed to children or containing any element which might be considered as being addressed to children.
Advertising of pharmaceutical products that have not been admitted for trade in the territory of Poland or contain information which is inconsistent with the officially approved pharmaceutical product description.

Special restrictions are also imposed on advertising directed to specialists and the public.

VII. Generic substitution
Generic substitution is allowed under Polish law. Generic drug names comprise the name of the company producing the medicine together with its INN or invented name.

VIII. Online issues – e-pharmacies, domain names
The market turnover of medicinal products takes place only under the terms and conditions laid down by the PHL’s regulations. Conducting the sale of medicines is reserved for “public pharmacies”. In addition, the right of the retail resale of certain drugs without a prescription and some prescription drugs is granted to “pharmacy points”. The sale of selected drugs without a prescription can be also conducted by the so-called “out-pharmacy market post”: herbal-medical shops, specialized medical supplies stores, pet shops, herbal/chemists shops/drugstores, and public shops – provided that the staff have appropriate qualifications. The law precisely regulates all features that the public pharmacy should have and the pharmacy point. It already implies the existence of the physical premises open to the public and intended to pursue the sale of drugs. The PHL authorized public pharmacies and pharmacy points to conduct the mail-order sale for public only for medicines purchased without a prescription (article 68 (3) of the PHL). Additionally, the term “pharmacy” is a reserved name that is legally protected under the PHL and criminal law, as well as unfair competition regulations. Any entity wishing to use the term “pharmacy” must meet strict regulatory requirements. Online operators that do not meet the conditions set by the regulations on pharmacies can neither use the term “pharmacy” nor trade in pharmaceutical products.

Where a domain name including a trade mark has been registered by an unauthorized third party, the mark owner can use mediation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings or civil court action to obtain the cancellation or transfer of such domain. However, following a recent judgement of the Polish Competition and Consumer Protection Court of 26 December 2006, case act signature XVII AmC 170/05, ADR is unlikely to succeed if the disputed domain name is registered in the name of a natural person.