The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 November 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 693/06 held that a dimensional trade mark (3D), which is an exact reproduction of the packaging is not distinctive, and thus cannot be registered.
This case concerned the refusal to grant the right of protection for International trade mark IR-405177 owned by Ferrero, S.p. A. from Alba.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 3 August 2005, case file VI SA/Wa 1482/04 held that a single colour is not able by its nature to independently distinguish goods of individual entrepreneurs. But, even if a single colour is devoid of any distinctive character according to article 3(1)(b) of the First Directive, it may acquire such a distinctive character in relation to goods by use of such coulour. This factor should be considered when assessing the registerability of a single coulour as a trademark.
This judgment concerned separate Color RED Pantone 485 C applied for by Firma Cukiernicza SOLIDARNOŚĆ – rok założenia 1952 Spółka z o. o. from Lublin for goods in class 30 such as confectionery, chocolate confectionery, sweets.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 November 2004 case file GSK 864/04 held that according to Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985 Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments, an undefined trademark, i.e. a trade mark which is not represented in one form, does not possess any sufficient ability to distinguish goods. This judgment concerned a trade mark that was filled according to the Madrid system of international registration of marks.
The trade mark IR-667827 owned by FERRERO S.p.A. is represented in the double color composition (the lower part is in white and the top part is in orange). The Court ruled that there was no justification for the argument that the composition or combination of colors, that could serve as a trade mark, has to meet other and additional requirements, such as novelty and originality of form or compositions of colors, i.e. it has to be a manifestation of creativity. However, an undefined sign, that does not exist in one and the same form, is not able to create and capture the consumer associations as to the origin of goods from one and the same entrepreneur. So, such a sign is not sufficiently distinctive. A simple composition of two or more colors, without shape or contour, or the combination of these colors in every possible configuration, does not meet the accuracy and uniformity that is required to perform the function of the trade mark in order to be registered. Such inaccurate representation of the sign which is the combination of colors presented in an abstract (no contours) may lead to many different variations, which in turn, will not allow the consumer to perceive and remember this sign, and thus re-purchase the goods originating from the same company.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 October 2004 case file II GSK 92/05 held that the capability of distinguishing the goods or services (so-called abstract ability to distinguish goods or services) must be distinguished from the sufficient distinctiveness. Only after finding that a given sign is capable to serve as a trademark, its distinctive ability in concreto is subject to examination. The trade mark cannot be identified with the product itself.
The contradictions with the law or rules of social coexistence, that are the condition of inadmissibility to register a trade mark must not only connect directly to the sign itself, but also to the circumstances surrounding the registration of the mark if they contain elements contrary to law or the rules of social coexistence. In addition, the violation of other laws than those included in the TMA should be considered as the registration contrary to law. The registration of a 3D trade mark whose sole purpose is to monopolize the market of a given product and thus deprive the competitors of the freedom of establishment as regards the possibility of further production of the same product, is violation of the provisions of the law.