<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Polish IP &#38; IT law - copyright trademark computer internet telecomm &#187; distinctive character</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/trademark-law/distinctive-character/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rychlicki.net/en</link>
	<description>Tomasz Rychlicki Intellectual Property Law Internet Law IT Law Computer Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:38:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 72/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/29/5772/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/29/5772/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §1 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 130 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 25 May 2006, the Polish company AERECO Wentylacja Sp. z o.o. applied for the word-figurative trade mark HIGROSTEROWANIE Z-311192 for goods in Classes 07, 09, 11 and 35. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection, claiming that the applied sign does not have sufficient level of distinctive character. The PPO [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/29/5772/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 1033/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/22/7548/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/22/7548/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[absolute grounds for refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquired distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 130 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[descriptive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generic sign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal rights or interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press title]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secondary meaning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is another part of the saga of trade marks consisting of numerals. On March 2003, Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o.o. applied for the word trade mark 100 PANORAMICZNYCH Z-261876 for goods in Class 16 such as newspapers, charade magazines, booklets, brochures, flyers, calendars, posters, exercise books. The Polish Patent Office decided that it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/22/7548/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 586/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/02/7428/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/02/7428/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 135 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 145 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark @ @lfanet Z-331247 applied for by @ALFANET Marcin Małolepszy from Borowo Kolonia for for goods and services in Classes 09, 37, 38, 42 and 45. The PPO decided that the applied trade mark is similar to the word trade [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/02/7428/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 1346/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/12/13/5333/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/12/13/5333/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:08:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(2)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 246 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generic sign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5333</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark BIO-ACTIVE R-169823, in part for goods in Class 3, i.e. body care cosmetics. The owner BIO-ACTIVE DYSTRYBUCJA Sp. z o.o. filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 19 April 2010 case file VI [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/12/13/5333/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1291/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/11/23/7285/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/11/23/7285/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:21:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[absolute grounds for refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquired distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 151 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[descriptive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-law issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish TLDs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7285</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark LAW24.pl applied for the Polish law firm Komarnicka Korpalski Kancelaria Prawna sp.j for services in Class 35 such as advising on business and business management consultancy, in Class 36 such as financial consultancy and financial and accounting activity, and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/11/23/7285/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

