Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: distinctive character

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 203/10

October 11th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company INTERKOBO Sp. z o.o. filed a request for the invalidation of the right of protection for “kucyk pony” R-139097 trade mark registered for HASBRO POLAND Sp. z o.o. Kucyk means “pony” in Polish language. INTERKOBO argued that it has the legitimate interest in the invalidation proceedings because it is a manufacturer of toys, and it offers products such as toy ponies. In addition, in the cease and desist letter dated on 24 April 2007, HASBRO called INTERKOBO to stop the infringement of the right of protection for “kucyk pony” R-139097 trade mark which consisted of using by the INTERKOBO of “Princes’ s Pony” sign for designation of ponies’ toys. INTERKOBO argued also that HASBRO restricts the freedom of economic activity of its competitors, asking them to stop marketing of toys in the form of a small pony and requesting destruction of such products. By registering of the trade mark in question HASBRO had the intention of its use in isolation from the goods for which it was registered, and the intention of closing the access to the market for its competitors, the more that HASBRO as a professional market player should knew or should have known that the term “kucyk pony” as used for the toys in the form of a pony does not have any sufficient distinctiveness. INTERKOBO stressed that HASBRO Sp. z o.o. is a part of capital group operating on the global toys market, which is the position that allows it to dominate the market for local manufacturers of toys and contrary to the scope of the use made of registration to combat competition, which is contrary to the principles of the social coexistence.

HASBRO claimed that its sign is used on the Polish market, on the packaging of “kucyk pony” toys and other materials, since 1998 and is the subject of a number of marketing activities, and the brand “kucyk pony” includes not only toys, but also videos and a monthly magazine for children. HASBRO argued that its trade mark has a strong distinctive character and can be regarded as a reputable one, in relation to the goods it designates it has the so-called primary distinctive character.

The Polish Patent Office dismissed the request. INTERKOBO filed a complaint against PPO’s decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 24 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 203/10 affirmed this decision and dismissed the case. The VAC held that the trade mark in question is is a fanciful sign and has the primary distinctive character. It is not a generic name of any of the listed goods, and it does not inform about their properties. Pony (in Polish: kucyk) is the generic name of the horse species while it is not the name of the goods protected by the trade mark, which goods do not have any direct connection with any species of horses.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 691/09

October 5th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 14 October 2002, the Polish company BWS Polska Sp. z o.o. based in Zaczernie applied for the right of protection for VARNA Z-256235 trademark for goods in Class 33 such as wines. The Polish Patent Office informed the applicant that it cannot be granted a right of protection because VARNA is also a geographical name of the Bulgarian city of Varna, which is located in the eastern Black Sea region famous for producing high quality white wines. Due to the fact that the seat of the applicant is located on Polish territory, the sign may lead the potential buyers to confusion as to the origin of goods. In response, BWS noted that the sign does not contain any false information, while simultaneously indicating that it is an importer and distributor of wines from south-eastern Europe, including Bulgaria.

The PPO received also comments issued by BSG Poland Sp. z o. o. in which the company raised objection of lack of statutory requirements for the protection of the questioned trade mark. Comments were sent to BWS but the company has not agreed to these statements.

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant a right of protection. The PPO ruled that VARNA sign is information on the place of the origin of wine – the site of a wine-growing and processing, without informing the consumer about anything else. According to the PPO, the importer has the right to register its trade mark, but the choice that violates the rights of manufacturers who conduct business in the region of Varna – infringes on the principles of merchant’s honesty. A situation in which the Bulgarian wine producers could not provide the Polish consumer that the wine has been produced by them is not fair, because they were outrun by an entity whose relationship with Bulgaria is at least questionable.

BWS requested the retrial of its case. The company reduced the original list of goods to wines from Bulgaria. It argued also that, under a contract with the Bulgarian multi-vendor, which is located in Varna, it has exclusive rights to sell original bottled VARNA wine. BWS indicated that the packaging of imported wine, includes bottle shape and color and shape, color, composition and location of the graphic label and it is its own creation. The company pointed out that the Trade Mark Register includs other signs being the name of national and international cities, towns, and in its opinion, the registration of VARNA trade mark will not be the monopolization of the word, because the Varna city remains a geographical name, the name of the appellation of origin or possibly the name of the seat of the suppliers of wine.

After reconsidering the matter, the Polish Patent Office upheld the contested decision. The PPO withdrew from contesting the trade as contrary to good merchant’s practice and public policy, pointing out also that the limited list of goods also been removed as an obstacle to the misleading nature of the sign. However, the PPO ruled that VARNA is the word trade mark, with no graphics, and indicates the origin of goods, therefore, it cannot be registered. The average consumer will read the sign as the Bulgarian city or geographic region on the Black Sea, famous for making wines. BWS filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 March 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2098/08 held that the contested decision is the right. According to the Court the basic prerequisite for the grant of the right of protection is the distinctive character of a sign. The legal doctrine distinguishes between the so-called abstract distinctive ability and the concrete distinctive ability. The mark is characterized by the abstract distinctive ability, where a sign is examined abstractly (in isolation from the specific goods or services) capable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of another. The mark has concrete distinctive character when it is capable of distinguishing goods or services specified in the application to the Patent Office of goods or services of another company.

BWS filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 July 2010 case file II GSK 691/09 reversed the contested judgment and refered the case back for reconsideration. The SAC held that the VAC overlooked in its deliberations, the fact that the disputed word mark VARNA is not present in the Polish language as the name of the city in Bulgaria. This spelling of the city name does not occur in Bulgarian either (it’s Варна). However, in Polish language the city is known as Warna. Meanwhile the VAC in assessing the facts of the case stated that it was undisputed that the sign is the name of the VARNA city in Bulgaria and that by placing it on the goods (wines originating from Bulgaria) it will indicate the relevant public without difficulty and without no additional actions the origin goods. The Court had the duty to assess the legality of the contested decision of the Polish Patent Office even if the allegation was not raised in the complaint. The law requires that the assessment whether the mark is sufficiently distinctive has to be made individually for each sign. The VAC should also examine the issue whether a questioned sign due to the use of the first letter “V” and not “W” (as is correctly spelled in Polish) has sufficient distinctiveness, although phonetically the “V” and “W” letters sound the same in the Polish language. Of those grounds the SAC held that the VAC has not made an overall assessment of distinctive character of the sign in question, taking into account its visual, aural or conceptual elements, and therefore the VAC infringed on Article 113 §1 and Article 145 §1 point 1 C of the Polish Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, since it dismissed the case without adequate explanation of the matter. The SAC noted also that the BWS claimed that, under the earlier decisions of the PPO, it acquired rights of protection for trademarks, even though they were the names of cities (Melnik – a city in Bulgaria), Calama (a city in Chile), or Beverly Hills (a city in California), however, the VAC did not respond to such arguments. In light of the settled case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, the administration body can change its opinion on the content of the right conclusion, which should be issued in a specific type of cases, but it must carefully justify such a change, especially when changing the view of decisions taken in relation to the same applicant. The case-law of the administration may therefore be subject to change, if the authority demonstrates that there are reasonable grounds.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 109/10

September 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for BIO-ACTIVE R-169823 trade mark 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 SA/Wa 109/10 upheld the questioned decision and ruled that a trade mark consisting exclusively of informational signs that are normally used to designate the type of goods or services, even if those signs are in a language other than Polish, is not registrable. The Court also noted that the disputed trade mark is the so-called “internationalism”, that is a sign, which is present in other languages in almost identical form. In different languages it has the same meaning, construction reading and tone. As a result of the granting of the right of protection to the trade mark in question, all cosmetics producers except the owner were deprived of the opportunity to introduce to the market of all products bearing the term containing given information, and consumers could not be adequately informed about the characteristics of these products.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 21/10

September 7th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company Atlantic sp. z o.o. applied for the word-figurative trade mark ATL ATLANTIC Z-313731 in classes 03, 18 and 25. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection in part of the goods covering deodorants for personal use, soaps, perfumery, cosmetics, cosmetic kits, portable suitcases for cosmetics, travel bags for clothing, shopping bags, beach bags, handbags and women handbags.

Z-313731

The PPO held that there are similar and conflicting trade marks such as Atlantic R-141375 for goods in class 18, Atlantic IR-631190 and ATLANTIC IR-787876 for goods in class 03.

R-141375

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 7 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 21/10 dissmissed Atlantic’s complaint and upheld the contested decision. The Court ruled that in all cases where the problem of the similarity of the opposed trade marks arises, it is the result of two closely related issues, i.e. the similarity of signs and the similarity (homogeneity) of goods/services for which the signs are applied for, registered or used. Both these factors determine the scope of trademark protection (citing M. Kępiński [in:] Niebezpieczeństwo wprowadzania w błąd odbiorców co do źródła pochodzenia towarów w prawie znaków towarowych, ZNUJ PWOWI zeszyt no 28 of 1982, p. 10). The VAC held that the convergent elements of disputed signs have crucial meaning for the buyers and such conclusion is justified from a psychological point of view, since the purchaser keeps in mind only a general representation of the sign for which is he or she looking for. Therefore the buyer chooses a sign based only on dominant elements while ignoring differences.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 626/09

September 6th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Swiss company Marquard Media, current publisher of the magazine “Przegląd Sportowy”, which since 1974 always includes a supplement entitled “Skarb Kibica” (in English: Fan’s Treasure), succeeded in registering SKARB KIBICA R-134960 at the Polish Patent Office.

In 2004, Profus Management requested the invalidation of the right of protection for the SKARB KIBICA trade mark. Profus claimed that this sign has informational nature rather than distinctive character. It provided an opinion written by professor Urszula Promińska to support its arguments with this regard. In 1992 Profus Management bought the weekly football magazine “Piłka Nożna” with “Skarb Kibica” column. Marquard Media filed a trade mark infringement suit.

In 2006, the PPO has decided on the invalidation of the right of protection. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 2 October 2006 case file VI SA/WA 791/06 reversed this decision, but only because of deficiencies in the proceedings and send it back to the PPO for reconsideration.

When examining the case after the judgment, the PPO in its decision of 25 February 2008 case file Sp. 213/07 dismissed Profus Management request. The PPO held that the mere use of the sign in question by different entities cannot deprive its distinctiveness. When the case went again in 2009 to the VAC, the owner of “Przegląd Sportowy” and “Skarb Kibica” was Axel Springer Poland. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 February 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2219/08 dismissed Profus complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 31 August 2010 case file II GSK 626/09 upheld this decision. The SAC held that the mere use of this sign by different publishers at the date of its registration cannot deprive its distinctiveness. The distinctive character of such a sign is examined, of how it was perceived by readers interested in football and sport activities.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 607/09

August 31st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

TRODAT POLSKA Sp. z o.o. from Warsaw applied for the right of protection for Pieczątka 2 Z-294822, Pieczątka 3 Z-294821, and Pieczątka 4 Z-294823 trade marks in class 13. Pieczątka means “stamp” in English. The Polish Patent Office in letters dated 27 March 2007 informed the applicant that these signs are not capable of serving as trade marks due to lack of sufficient distinctive character and urged Trodat to submit comment on this issue. The applicant did not respond to the letters sent by the PPO, in particular, Trodat did not take any position on the reported lack of sufficient distinctive character.

Z-294821

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 July 2010 case file II GSK 607/09 held that the burden of proof rests on those who seek for legal consequences from a particular fact for itself (the applicant), it results from a series of obligations incumbent on the applicant, including the obligation to provide explanations, to take an active part in the proceedings and to submit precise requests. These obligations are provided in Articles 145(2) and 152 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments, in connection with Regulation of the Prime Minister of 8 July 2002 on filing and processing of trademark applications, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 115, item 998 with subsequent amendments.

Article 145
1. Subject to paragraph (2), where the Patent Office finds that the statutory requirements for the grant of a right of protection for a trademark have not been satisfied, it shall make a decision on refusal to grant the right.
2. Before the decision referred to in paragraph (1) is made, the Patent Office shall fix a time limit, within which the applicant is invited to react on the collected evidences and documents which imply the existence of grounds that may cause the right of protection to be denied.
3. Where the statutory requirements are found not to have been satisfied in respect to only certain goods, a right of protection for the trademark in respect of these goods shall be first to be refused by the Patent Office. On the respective decision becoming final the Patent Office shall grant a right of protection for the trademark in respect of the goods, for which it can be granted.

Article 152
The Prime Minister shall, by way of regulation, determine the detailed requirements to be satisfied by a trademark application, the detailed rules and procedure to be applied in the course of examination of trademark applications including, in particular, the extent to which the relevant information may be disclosed to the public after the expiration of the period referred to in Article 143 and the manner in which it is made available, as well as the extent to which the Patent Office is authorised to make corrections in the list of goods and their classification. The requirements to be satisfied by trademark applications may not be determined in such a way as to encumber the applicant with excessive and unreasonable impediments.

The renunciation of the party – despite the invitation issued by the Polish Patent Office – to submit sufficient evidence, explanations, positions may not be of no importance in a situation where the party alleges that the PPO erred in its decision in this particular issue, as a result of breach of the obligation imposed on the PPO to clarify the circumstances of the case in accordance with Article 7 and 77 of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments.

Article 7
Public administration bodies shall uphold the rule of law during proceedings and shall take all necessary steps to clarify the facts of a case and to resolve it, having regard to the public interest and the legitimate interests of members of the public.

Article 77.
§ 1. The public administration body is required to comprehensively collect and examine all evidential material.
§ 2. At each stage of proceedings a body can amend, supplement or withdraw rulings made regarding the examination of evidence.
§ 3. An body conducting proceedings as a result of having been required to do so by the body having jurisdiction to settle the case (Article 52) may, on an ex officio basis or on application by one of the parties, hear new witnesses or experts on circumstances that form the objects of such proceedings.
§ 4. Universally accepted facts and facts known to the body ex officio do not require proof. Parties to proceedings should be informed of facts that are known to the body.

The SAC noted that the provisions of the IPL that provides the possibility to request the applicant by the PPO to submit comments or issue a statement, in fact, serve to define the limits of administrative case, such as defining what is to be examined by the PPO and to what extent this should occur. The PPO is required to make an invitation before taking a decision, therefore, before deciding on the matter. At this stage, it is possible to have the intervention of the parties, if, contrary to the intentions expressed in the request/application, the PPO, for example, does not cover by its activities of all elements of the case, or unreasonably restricts its borders.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 746/09

August 10th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story decribed in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2284/08” that concerned HERITAGE FILMS trade mark. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 August 2010 case file II GSK 746/09 dismissed the cassation complaint brought by Zygmunt Piotrowski. The SAC held inter alia that the provisions of the TMA or the IPL do not provide in the course of the litigation proceedings lead by the Polish Patent Office, for the possibility to control the legality of the administrative proceedings that concerned the registration of a given trade mark. The legality of a decision granting the right of protection should be challenged in different proceedings.

Heritage

The Court noted that Mr Piotrowski confused the concepts of “invalidation of the registration right” or “invalidation of right of protection for a trade mark” with the annulment of the decision on the granting of the right. There are different grounds for such decisions and other procedures on their issuance, but in case of the breach of the provisions listed in Article 29 of the Trade Marks Act, those conditions may overlap, and only in this case they might be raised in the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the invaliditon of the protection right, although identical in its consequences, cannot be identified with the institution of the annulment of the decision on the granting of the right of protection.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 452/10

July 19th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2009, the Polish Patent Office declared that the right of protection for REAL trademark owned by real SB-Warenhaus GmbH from Germany, lapsed partially. The German company requested for the suspension of the contested decision. The request stated that the contested decision would cause a negative economic impact for real SB-Warenhaus GmbH, which, through a Polish subsidiary, uses lapsed trade mark continuously since 1997. The German company has made far-reaching financial investments to build market position of REAL trade mark, in Poland – around 10 million PLN. In addition, the public awareness of the brand position, has not only financial backing but also social, because the company built on Polish territory large-area markets, which are operated under the name REAL, therefore, renaming the company and its markets would also affect the 13,500 employees. Given the increasing competition in the market, other competitors, could in good faith (or intentionally) use this trade mark. There was therefore a real risk that, until final completion of this case, the distinctive character of REAL trade mark would be weakened.

R-132135

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 452/10 decided to stay the execution of the questioned decision and ruled that if the decision of the Patent Office has not been suspended, REAL trade mark used by the Polish subsidiary could not be used, and others could exploit the position of this trade mark. The Court also agreed that financial outlays made for the creation and operation of REAL’s supermarkets, were large, and the scale of employment in these supermarkets and the necessary change of the company name and the supermarket, could adversely affect the situation of workers.

See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 451/10“.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 451/10

July 17th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

R-132135

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 451/10 decided to stay the execution of the questioned decision and ruled that if the decision of the Patent Office has not been suspended, REAL trade mark used by the Polish subsidiary could not be used, and others could exploit the position of this trade mark. The Court also agreed that financial outlays made for the creation and operation of REAL’s supermarkets, were large, and the scale of employment in these supermarkets and the necessary change of the company name and the supermarket, could adversely affect the situation of workers.

See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 452/10“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 496/09

July 2nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office has refused to recognize the right of protection for a trademark PREMIUM DE-LUXE NEMIROFF IR-802093 registered for Nemiroff Intellectual Property Establishment because of its similarity to a series of earlier trade marks owned by the Pokish Company Wyborowa S.A. This series included word trade mark PREMIUM R-71602, PREMIUM VODKA R-82601, GOLD PREMIUM R-108603 and many others. Nemiroff filed a request for reconsideration claiming that the word “Premium” with respect to alcohol is often used to describe more accurately its class and quality and in this connection it has no distinctive character. Consumers are choosing alcohol based on its quality and the name of the manufacturer.

IR-802093

The Patent Office upheld the contested decision. The PPO explained that the most exposed part of the questioned trade trade is the word PREMIUM, because of its location, size and bright color in contrast to the soothing white-blue-gray color of the rest of the sign.The PPO stated that the word “Premium” is easy to remember, but it has rather poor degree of distinctive character, which are often used to denote exceptional quality. The figurative elements of the mark in such a situation may not be sufficient to exclude the likelihood of misledading the purchasers as to the origin of the goods, in particular, it will not help to exclude the associations between characters. Although the PPO agreed with the position of the parties as to the universality of the word “Premium” in trade, however, the PPO also noted that in the strict sense it may be a distinctive sign in Poland, and it is the most exposed element in questioned trade mark. The broad and long-term use of it in the form of trade marks used by Wyborowa S.A. allowed it to acquire a secondary meaning. Given the above, the Patent Office found that in normal economic turnover PREMIUM DE-LUXE NEMIROFF may mislead the public as to the origin of the goods, as well as infringe the rights of protection of the owner of the opposed trade marks.

Nemiroff filed a complaint. The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 November 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1583/08 sided with PPO’s opinion. The VAC held that the Office properly decided that the questioned trade mark is similar to a series of earlier registered trade marks, all including the distinctive word element „Premium”, which created the risk of the public being misled.

Nemiroff filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 March 2010 case file II GSK 496/09 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. The SAC held that the VAC erred in assessing the similarity between the opposing trade marks by focusing only on one element – the word “Premium”, without trying to explain its distinctive character as a designation of exceptional quality of a product. Then it would be difficult to talk about the fact that the earlier registered trade marks with the word “Premium” come from one source. The owner of a sign that has weak distinctive character must often tolerate the coexistence of the similar trade marks.

See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1133/10“.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 274/10

June 1st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 14 March 2005, the Polish company PMB S.A. from Białystok applied for “dębowa mocno wędzona” (oak heavily smoked) trade mark Z-292377, for goods in class 29 such as meats, smoked products and offal products.

The Polish Patent Office denied to grant a right of protection and PMB filed a complaint to the administrative court. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a judgment of 14 April 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 274/10, rejected the complaint. According to the Court, in this case, the PPO correctly held that PMB has not shown that the sign has acquired distinctiveness. As it was clear from case files, the only evidence provided by PMB was statements of sales of products marked with the questioned sign as of January 2005. The issue of acquisition of secondary meaning (acquired distinctiveness) is taken into account together with all the circumstances of the presence of a sign on the market, including such as: market share, the intensity, geographical extent, duration of the use of a trade mark, investments in advertising, the percentage of a relevant group of customers who recognize the sign as an indication of origin from a particular entrepreneur, etc. Such evidences must come prior to the date of filing of a trademark application with the Polish Patent Office. The Court commented on the Community case law in which the evidence of secondary meaning is also allowed from the period after the date of trade mark application, if they show that acquired distinctiveness already existed at that date.

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

Trade mark law, case V CSK 71/09

March 11th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Technopol Publishing Agency filed a suit against Phoenix Press and Bauer Publishing House. Technopol requested the court to prohibit both defendants from putting on the market all magazines and periodicals bearing the number “100″ or its multiples, and journals bearing the titles composed of three Arabic numerals together with the words “panorama” (in Polish: panorama) or “panoramic” (in Polish: panoramiczny), and to order the withdrawal of such publications from the market, to order the publication of an apology of specific content in the press, to order the defendants to pay the amount of 75000 PLN as compensation and the amount of 99000 PLN as unjustified benefits received by the defendants as a result of the unlawful use of Technopol’s trade marks, and to order defendants to withdraw particular trade mark applications from the Polish Patent Office.

Technopol argued that it has introduced characteristic titles of crosswords magazines, presenting the number “100″ or its multiples, with the words “panorama” or “panoramic” since 1994. Bauer Publishing House gave a licence to Phoenix Press to publish crosswords magazine entitled “Chwila na 100 panoramicznych”. Later on, Phoenix Press began to publish crosswords magazines with titles composed of the multiple of “100″ and the “panoram” word.

Technopol based its claims on articles 3, 10 and 18 of 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.

Article 3
(1) The act of unfair competition shall be the activity contrary to the law or good practices which threatens or infringes the interest of another entrepreneur or customer.
(2) The acts of unfair competition shall be in particular: misleading designation of the company, false or deceitful indication of the geographical origin of products or services, misleading indication of products or services, infringement of the business secrecy, inducing to dissolve or to not execute the agreement, imitating products, slandering or dishonest praise, impeding access to the market and unfair or prohibited advertising and organising a system of pyramid selling.
(…)
Article 10
(1) Such indication of products or services or its lack, which may mislead customers in relation to the origin, quantity, quality, components, manufacturing process, usefulness, possible application, repair, maintenance and another significant features of products or services as well as concealing the risks connected with their use, shall be the act of unfair competition.
(2) Releasing for free circulation products in the packing which may cause effects referred to in section 1 above shall be the act of unfair competition, unless the use of such packing is justified by technical reasons.
(…)
Article 18(1) Where the act of unfair competition is committed, the entrepreneur whose interest is threatened or infringed may request:
1) relinquishment of prohibited practices,
2) removing effects of prohibited practices,
3) making one or repeated statement of appropriate content and form,
4) repairing the damage, pursuant to general rules;
5) handing over unjustified benefits, pursuant to general rules,
6) adjudication of an adequate amount of money to the determined social goal connected with support for the Polish culture or related to the protection of national heritage – where the act of unfair competition has been deliberate.
2. The court, upon a motion of the entitled party, may also adjudge on products, their packing, advertising materials and another items directly connected with commitment of the act of unfair competition. In particular, the court may order their destruction or include them on account of the indemnity.

Technopol’s claims were also based on articles 120(2) and 296(1) and (2) 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.

Article 120
1. Any sign capable of being represented graphically may be considered as trademark, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.
2. The following, in particular, may be considered as trademarks within the meaning of paragraph (1): words, designs, ornaments, combinations of colours, the three-dimensional shape of goods or of their packaging, as well as melodies or other acoustic signals.
(…)
Article 296
1. Any person whose right of protection for a trademark has been infringed or any person who is permitted by law to do so, may demand the infringing party to cease the infringement, to surrender the unlawfully obtained profits and in case of infringement caused by fault also to redress the damage:
i) in accordance with the general principles of law,
ii) by the payment of a sum of money at the amount corresponding to the license fee or of other reasonable compensation, which while being vindicated would have been due on account of consent given by the holder to exploit his trademark.
1a. To the claims referred to in paragraph (1) the provisions of Article 287(2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.

2. Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(i) a trademark identical to a trademark registered in respect of identical goods,
(ii) a trademark identical or similar to a trademark registered in respect of identical or similar goods, if a likelihood of misleading the public, including in particular a risk of associating the trademark with a registered trademark, exists;
(iii) a trademark identical or similar to a renown trademark registered for any kind of goods, if such use without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the user or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.

Phoenix Press and Bauer Publishing House requested the court to dismiss the suit. They argued that all trade marks in question have only informational character, and they refer to the title of the magazine “Chwila dla Ciebie”, and substantially differ from plaintiff’s trade marks, which excludes the risk of confusion.

The judgments of the District Court and the Court of Appeal did not satisfy any of the parties and as a consequence, both appealed.

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 24 November 2009, case file V CSK 71/09, ruled that the admissibility of a cassation complaint in matters of property rights is dependent on the minimum value of the subject matter of litigation, which in economic cases, cannot be less than 75000 PLN. The legal doctrine and the case law of the Supreme Court has expressed the view that the claims under article 18(1) points 1, 3 and 4, of the CUC have non-financial nature. See judgment of the Supreme Court of 9 March 2006, case file l CZ 12/06, and a judgment of the SC of 9 January 2008, case file II CSK 363/07. But this view has no legal justification which was the most widely expressed by the Supreme Court in the opinion of 8 March 2007, case file III CZ 12/07, published in OSNC 2008/2/26. The Court held that the claims set out in the CUC, though – according to the prevailing view – are not based on the absolute rights (enforceable against anybody infringing that right, an erga omnes right can be distinguished from a right based on a contract, which is only enforceable against the contracting party), they are directly contingent upon economic interests of persons who have the absolute right, and thus have the financial character. This view is justified by the general objective of the unfair competition law as defined in article 1 of the CUC, which is to prevent and combat unfair competition, and by provisions of article 20 of the CUC which set the same term of terminations of actions as for claims ensuing from property rights. For this reason, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint brought by Phoenix Press.

Technopol based its cassation complaint inter alia on the reputation of its trade marks. The Supreme Court ruled that according to the legal doctrine and the case law established by the SC, the distinction made between well-known and reputed trade marks is based on a different criterion. The reputation of a trade mark means its attractiveness, the value of advertising it creates and the ability to stimulate sales of goods marked with it. It is therefore a criterion referring rather to the special quality of a sign than to the degree of its knowledge. Such opinion was issued by the Supreme Court in a judgment of 7 March 2007, case file II CSK 428/06. The Supreme Court in a judgment of 12 October 2005, case file III CK 160/05, published in OSNC 2006/7-8/132, ruled that, the reputed or renowned trade mark serves as a carrier of information and ideas/opinions about high quality and high prestige. The last word is synonymous with “reputation” in Polish. However, the concept of a reputed/renown trade mark does not indicate an association with the exclusive services or goods of significant value. A renowned trade mark is a carrier of information on a specific, expected and tested quality of a sign. It includes a settled belief about the expected values of the goods, in the minds of buyers. The Supreme Court pointed out that the reputed trade mark in relation to other signs is characterized by ever stronger distinctive characteristic. Numerical trade marks owned by Technopol and registered for crosswords periodicals do not have the distinctive character. Trade marks intended to use for such periodicals have informational nature and are descriptive. They demonstrate direct and specific relationship with goods at stake which could allow its buyers to see them as a description of quantity of goods or one of their essential characteristics. In any case, a numerical trade mark placed on the cover of the magazine informs about the amount of crosswords that are appearing in the magazine and it is seen by buyers as a description of the characteristics of the goods, in particular the number of crosswords appearing in the magazine. Similarly, the word signs “panorama” or “panoramas” are used to describe the features of crosswords printed in a journal. The weak distinctive characteristic of Technopol’s trade marks that were registered for crosswords periodicals proves that these are not reputed trade marks, and there is no risk of confusion as referred to in article 296(2)(ii) of the IPL.

There was no evidence for the Court, that Technopol’s trade marks acquired the secondary meaning. On the contrary, such arguments were denied by the Court because of the use of these trade marks in such a way that they became a carrier of information about the origin of the goods. The Court confirmed that, as a general rule, it is possible for a trade mark that also serves as a press title, to acquire secondary meaning and distinctive character while performing informational function, but only taking into account all the circumstances the of use of such sign for designation of the goods.

The Court also ruled that the risk of consumers confusion as to the origin of goods, which creates the infringement of the right of protection for a trade mark, has many factors that require a comprehensive examination. The degree of knowledge of the registered trade mark, the degree of similarity between trade marks and the goods, and the circumstances in which the marked goods are sold, but also its distinctiveness should be taken into account while determining the risk of consumers confusion. According to the Court, the risk of consumers confusion was excluded because of the weak distinctive characteristic of the descriptive numerical signs, and the allegations of violation of article 296(2)(ii) of the IPL were unfounded, irrespective of any similarity between Phoenix Press and Technopol’s trade marks. Article 296(2)(ii) of the IPL applies to the infringement performed in the form of imitation, which may involve the use of an identical or similar trade mark to a trade mark registered, for the same or similar goods to these listed in the registry. The premise of violation is not only the unlawful use of a sign, but also the risk of confusion as to the origin of goods. The common knowledge of Technopol’s trade marks has not been proved and such knowledge cannot be equated with the popularity, especially as these trade mark serve for the designation of crosswords magazines that are targeted to specific audiences.

The Supreme Court also ruled that there was no violations of the provisions of the CUC related to the likelihood of consumers confusion as to the origin of the goods. The condition for the application of article. 10(1) of the CUC is decided on the factual basis. As it was noted by the Supreme Court in a judgment of 23 April 2008, case file III CSK 377/07, published in OSNC 2009/6/88, the difficulties in establishing such datum stem from the situation that it’s a fact of a legal nature and which may arise, as well as the fact that the likelihood of confusion must relate to a specific model of the consumer. According to article 10(1) of the CUC, the indication of the goods or services must have such a distinctive character so it’s illegal use would cause the likelihood of consumers confusion as to the origin of the goods. Only the use of words and numbers in a specific composition could cause such a risk. A similar opinion was issued by the Supreme Court in a judgment of 21 February 2008, recognizing that the numerical designation placed on the cover of the crosswords magazine can make the average consumer confused as to the origin of the goods, only if it is put in the place usually reserved for the title of a periodical. There was also the need for an appropriate balance between the rights and interests of different market participants, so giving due protection would not allowed to abuse their position.

The Supreme Court also noted that Technopol wrongly raised the plea of faulty decision of a case where it argued that the lower court did not take into account its claim against the defendants to withdraw given trade mark applications from the Polish Patent Office and the claim to abandon of their trademarks rights. The Court ruled that these claims relate to the rights on the existence of which decides an independent body – the Polish Patent Office. It is the PPO’s jurisdiction to decide on the invalidation of the right of protection for a trade mark at the request of any person who has a legitimate interest if it’s shown that the statutory conditions for obtaining this right have not been met.

For all these reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint brought by Technopol.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 214/09

March 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is a continuation of the story described in a post entitled “Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1000/08“. Les Laboratoires Servier from France filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 16 December 2009, case file II GSK 214/09, ruled that the sign GLAZIDE is representing a creative transformation of the name of an active ingredient (AI) called gliclazidium (gliclazide) that was proposed by the WHO. GLAZIDE has the distinctive character because it is a fanciful sign and it does not constitute either a name of a generic product, or the International Nonproprietary Name of the active substance of the Latin Gliclazidum (English: Gliklazide, Polish: Gliklazyd), nor does it directly inform about the characteristics (properties) of goods. Therefore, the SAC rejected the complaint.

Pharmaceutical trade marks, case VI SA/Wa 844/09

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.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1144/08

October 17th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 25 September 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1144/08, published in LEX under the no. 513878, held that the descriptive character of a trade mark is the fact that the sole and direct information presented is information which indicates the characteristic of the goods. These signs that only by an indirect way of inference can be deemed as a designation of such characteristics do not have the descriptive character. This case concerned the examinations proceedings of “telepizzeria” Z-284471 trade mark that was applied for by BONO A. MAZUREK Spółka Jawna.