Polish IP & IT law » Polish Patent Office

Archive for: Polish Patent Office

The second lap in race for Dakar

March 5th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is a sequel to a story I described in a post entitled “Race for Dakar“. 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 a 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“.

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 parties 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

Last updated on February 2, 2010.

I. The law concerning pharmaceutical trade marks

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.
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.

See my post entitled “Pharmaceutical trade marks, case VI SA/Wa 844/09 – GESTROL is not always similar to GESTROLTEX“.

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.

VI.A. Case law
See the post entitled “Polish case law on advertising of pharmaceuticals“.

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.

Industrial design, case II GSK 238/09

January 27th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 16 December 2009, case file II GSK 238/09, ruled that the essential features of the industrial design, are these characteristics that determine the overall impression that the design produces on the informed user. These are features of the shape/appearance which serve as a basis for identifying, distinguishing the design from other, already known designs. The forms of the industrial design differ (otherwise there would be no forms). But these differences include irrelevant features, i.e. those which do not affect the overall impression. The essential features, that decide on the overall impression are common for all forms of an industrial design. Forms of industrial design that are put in one application which are also having the essential features common, differ from each other only by features that are irrelevant. These forms are identical as defined in article 103(1) – second sentence – of the IPL.

Designs shall also be deemed to be identical with those made available to the public if their features differ only in immaterial details.

This means that if some of the forms of the industrial design had already been made public, and lost its novelty, other forms, differing from them only by insignificant details, do not have the novelty characteristic, because they are considered by the law as identical, which means, they are devoid of the individual characteristic.

This judgment was issued on the basis of the cassation complaint brought from the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, of 11 December 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1827/08. The judgment of the VAC was reported in my post entitled “Industrial design case VI SA/Wa 1827/08“.

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Zadaszenie drzwi” (in English: door canopy), Rp-9201.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-9201

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

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 703/09

January 22nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 19 November 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 703/09 ruled that the entitled person to file a request for invalidation of a right in registration of an industrial design may be an owner of the industrial design registered with an earlier priority, if the existence of this deisgn is an obstacle to the novelty or individual character of the later design. The entitled person to file a request for invalidation may also be an entrepreneur that produces a product with a solution that is covered by the wrongly granted right in registration and to whom this wrongly granted right interferes with the freedom of business establishment and operation.

This case concerned the industrial design “Stelaż fotela” (in English: seat frame), Rp-8808.

Wzór Przemysłowy 8808

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

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

Industrial design case VI SA/Wa 189/09

January 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 9 October 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 189/09 ruled that according to article 103 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 on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.

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.

2. The designs shall not be deemed to have been made available to the public within the meaning of paragraph (1), if it could not have become known to the circles specialised in the sector, to which the design belongs.

it is not about the mere fact of the disclosure of the design, but whether it was possible for an unlimited number of persons from the circles specialised in the sector, to which the design belongs, to actually get acquainted with the given design.

This case concerned the industrial design “Tkanina meblowa” (in English: furniture fabric), Rp-12269.

Wzór Przemysłowy 12269

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

Polish court rules on trade mark use

January 19th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

EMO-FARM Spółka z o.o., the owner of “A sio !” R-173579 trade mark filed the opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to SI R-184885 trade mark applied for by Przedsiębiorstwo Farmaceutyczne ZIOŁOLEK sp. z o.o. The dispute between these two companies concerned inter alia the issue of trade mark use.The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in a judgment of 9 October 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1033/09 provided the interpretation of adequate provisions 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 on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.

The Court ruled that under the conditions set in the IPL, the trade mark use occurs when it is real, which means that the sign is used for goods and it is used in business transactions in a manner that enables the creation and persistence of the association between the sign and the product, it is unambiguous, which means as the trade mark use, at least in its primary function, i.e., to distinguish goods of the entitled person on the basis of their origin and it is used according to specialization. These abovementioned conditions must be met together, irrespectively of the form of the trade mark use. Their sum is beyond the pale of article 154 of the IPL which contains only a list of examples of trade mark use:

The use of a trademark shall, in particular, consist of:
(i) affixing the trademark to the goods covered by the right of protection or to the packaging thereof, offering and putting the goods on the market, importing or exporting thereof, or their storing for the purpose of offering and putting on the market, as well as offering or providing services under that trademark,
(ii) using the trademark on business documents handled in putting the goods on the market or in rendering services,
(iii) using the trademark in advertising.

This judgment is not yet final. The parties may file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Polish TIFFANY’s trade marks saga continues

January 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Some time ago, I reported in posts entitled “Poland: Tiffany fought with Tiffany” and “Poland: cross-border reputation” about two American companies that were disputing trade marks with a TIFFANY element before the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC). The New York’s company argued inter alia that use of TIFFANY trade mark for goods such as footwear is a parasitic activity that uses another’s trade mark reputation and is bringing undue financial benefit to the holder of national registrations. The Company also stressed the fact that its trade mark is subject to protection under article 8 of the Paris Convention.

The VAC in a judgment of 24 July 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 238/08, dismissed Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation’s appeals against the Polish Patent Office (PPO) decision of 19 March 2007, case files Sp. 68/04 and Sp. 69/04, regarding the cancellation of the right of protection for word-figurative trade marks: TIFFANY R-128063 and “Tiffany & Broadway Inc.” R-128064 which were registered in class 25 for shoes. The VAC ruled that the application for the protection of the TIFFANY mark for goods in class 25 was contrary to the principles of social coexistence because it caused the risk of weakening the reputation of the trade mark. Given the fact that the shoes are cheap and readily available, there is a risk of dilution of the reputation of TIFFANY trade mark and it may lead to lose its attractiveness among the exclusive clientele of goods bearing this mark.

The company filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 8 July 2009, case file II GSK 1110/08 ruled that the reputation of a trade mark is associated with its highly distinctive character. One could say that a reputed trade mark is the one that has a high ability to automatically trigger associations with the product for which it was registered. It is quite obvious that this ability will be weaker, adequately to the number of cases of using the same or similar trade mark as a designation of other goods that are originating from other entrepreneurs. With regard to the plea of weakening (the dilution) of the reputation of the Tiffany trade mark, i.e. weakening its individuality, based on the ability to cause the automatic association with the goods marked by this sign, such effects are also caused by unquestioned by the Court numerous registrations of identical or similar trade marks for other entrepreneurs for various other goods, as well as the use of this sign the name of very different businesses.

The SAC in a judgment of 8 July 2009, case file II GSK 1111/08 ruled that 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, do not explicitly provide for any special protection for unregistered reputed trade marks. However, the doctrine and the Polish case law have already accepted the concept, that such protection could be provided under article 8(1) of the TMA

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

in particular looking at the circumstance of “a trade mark conflicting with the principles of social coexistence”, from the subjective perspective – it was commented that, the “contradiction/variance with the principles of social coexistence” may concerning the conduct/behavior of the applicant. On the basis of such conclusions, the registration of a sign for the goods of another kind, if the registration was intended to use the reputation of another’s trade mark or it was a threat of such reputation, was excluded. A trade mark application that was filed contrary to the principles of social coexistence, was an application made in bad faith. The absolute grounds/obstacles that are provided against the registration of the mark as defined in article 8(1) of the TMA do not directly refer to the relationship between the sign that was applied for and any other competing trade mark, however, in accordance with the accepted interpretation of that provision, in case of the infringement of the rules of social coexistence, the obstacle could be the inappropriate behavior on the applicant (its actions done in bad faith). The assessment of applicant’s actions, who was motivated by the desire to use another’s trade mark reputation, should therefore be also varied according to circumstances of its motivation and, not only related to the trade mark itself.

The application for the right of protection for a trade mark that was made with the intent to use another trade mark’s reputation should be judged as an application that was made with the breach of the rules of social coexistence (application made in bad faith), regardless of whether it concerns a reputed registered trade mark or unregistered reputed trade mark.

The Polish case law, for instance the Supreme Administrative Court in its recent judgment of 9 May 2008, case file II GSK 506/07, that was previously reported in the post entitled “Poland: proving the fame of a trade mark“, already established the rule that in a case of famous trade mark and its reputation, besides its recognition, it must be also characterized by the following characteristics:

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

The SAC also noted that the Community case law provides several fundamental conditions for the recognition of a trade mark as a reputed one. These are:

knowledge of the trade mark by a significant group of customers,
the contribution of the trade mark in the market,
intensity and geographic scope of the use,
intensity matching of goods with the trade mark,
the size of expenditures on advertising and promotion of the trade mark.

The SAC cited inter alia the judgment of the Court of Justice of the UE of 14 September 1999 in case C-375/97, General Motors and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2004 in case T-8/03, El Corte Ingles and the CFI’s judgment of 25 May 2005 in case T-67/04, Spa Finders.

It is also clear that the reputation of a trade mark must be assessed and established in the country in which the protection is sought. If one would like to qualify a given trade mark as a reputed one in the Republic of Poland, then the argument of the international reputation of a trade mark is not sufficient. The basic circumstance for the recognition of the reputation of a sign in a specific country is to show by a person who is invoking this argument, the market share in terms of both quantity and value of goods sold.

The SAC held that provisions of the First Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 do not preclude the possibility of granting the protection to unregistered reputed trade marks under the national law. Just to keep it in order, it is worth adding, that 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 in article 132(2)(iii)

2) A right of protection for a trademark shall not be granted, if the trademark:
(iii) is identical or similar to a renown trademark registered or applied for registration with an earlier priority (provided that the latter is subsequently registered) on behalf of another party for any kind of goods, if it without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the applicant or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark. The above provision shall apply to well-known trademarks accordingly.

for the protection of registered trademarks to the extent of the wording of article 4(4)(a) of the Directive. The trade mark application that was made in bad faith shall be rejected based on the absolute ground for refusal of protection based on provisions of article 131(2)(i) of the IPL.

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,

The SAC ruled that the provisions of article 4(4)(a) of the Directive cannot be interpreted as the maximum limitation for the protection of famous marks in the national law and it would be difficult to follow the arguments that the First Directive 89/104 is an example of the so-called “complete harmonization” citing the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 January 2003 in case C-292/00, Davidoff & Cie S. A.

According to the SAC, the court of first instance (VAC) wrongly assumed the bad faith of the applicant and it did not consider the fact that the applicant has conducted its business in Poland since 1990 with the use of the mark, and after about five years of its activity, the company applied for the registration of the mark. These circumstances certainly were not indifferent to assess the intentions and purposes of the applicant so the VAC should address them in the grounds of the appeal.

When deciding on the interpretation of article 8(1) of the TMA, which allows for the protection of not registered reputed trade marks in Poland, it should be also noted, that such protection have a special character because it applies to unregistered marks, and it is an exception to the principle of protecting industrial property rights by the registration process. This requires preserving much care, so that without proper justification, would not depreciate the importance of registering trade mark and it would not reduced the registration to a purely formal procedure that has no importance.

Therefore, the SAC annulled both questioned judgments of the Voivodeship Administrative Court and returned to the VAC for reconsideration in accordance with the conclusions reached and ordered the Polish Patent Office to pay Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation 1200 PLN as reimbursement of costs of the cassation compliant.