Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: famous trade marks

Trade mark law, case Sp. 441/06

September 16th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Zino Davidoff’s attempted to invalidate the Polish trade mark for COOL WOMAN R-164594 registered in class 3 for goods such as for perfumery products including perfumes, toilet water, lavender water, cologne water and deodorants for personal use and owned by A&S Parfume Factory, a Polish company from Katowice.

The Swiss Company, being the owner of the Polish registered trade mark DAVIDOFF COOL WATER R-71968 and other International and Community trade marks, argued that COOL WATER brand had gained world renown and that the company incurred significant expenses in the brand’s promotion and advertising in Poland in the years 2002-2004. The Company from Fribourg alleged that A&S took the advantage of reputation of Davidoff’s trade marks.

A&S further argued that there was no risk of confusion because the word “cool” has no distinctive character and it appears in many trade marks registered in class 3 for cosmetics. There are 26 marks including the word “cool” that were registered under the Madrid Agreement procedure and 38 marks registered at the national level. The company from Katowice claimed that both elements had a clear meaning for buyers and that both of these English words were well-known to Polish consumers. A&S also argued that it is the Davidoff brand which has reputation – not its Cool Water trade marks.

The PPO in its decision case file Sp. 441/06 rejected the motion brought by Zino Davidoff. According to Polish Patent Office the word “cool” does not possess “the dominant meaning”, because it is included in different previously registered signs. The disputed marks, when assessed in their entirety, are not sufficiently similar to lead to a risk of consumer confusion regarding the origin of the goods. Therefore, the argument based on (the use of) the reputation of Davidoff’s trade marks was also regarded as unfounded.

The decision is not final. Both parties may appeal to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1483/08

June 23rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On September 2006, the Polish Patent Office issued a decision invalidating the right of protection of the BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 trade mark, owned by Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH from Hamburg, Germany. The PPO ruled that the registration of the disputed mark occurred in violation of article 8(2) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 1985, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 1985 No 5, itme 15, with later amendments.

A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
ii) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties

It was indisputable for the PPO that BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 consists of the “BOSS” sign, which was written in black, this being the only element of BOSS R-66417 trade mark and the main element of other signs: HUGO BOSS R-66418, BOSS HUGO BOSS IR-584899 and BOSS IR-606620 which are owned by HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG from Metzingen, Germany.

Reemtsma filed a complaint before the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The court rejected the complaint in its judgment of 4 September 2007, case file VI SA/WA 2195/06. Reemtsma filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC agreed with Reemtsma’s arguments that the PPO did not explain the facts accurately and did not thoroughly conside the entire evidence. The case was sent back to the VAC. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07“

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 6 February 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1483/08 annulled the contested decision of the PPO and decided that the decision was not subject to execution. The VAC also stressed the fact that it is necessary to distinguish the renown of an entrepreneur – its good reputation and positive image – from the trade mark’s reputation (renown). In the case of the reputation (renown) of a trade mark – the subject of positive perceptions is the mark itself and the goods identified by such mark as originating from a particular business, and the reputation of the entrepreneur is generally positive perceptions and assessments about the business.

The case went back to the PPO. However, the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 15 October 2010 case Sp. 255/09 invalidated the right of protection for the BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 trade mark. This time, the PPO found that the trade mark in question is confusingly similar to BOSS HUGO BOSS IR-584899 and BOSS IR-606620 trade marks, and these findings were justified by the literal interpretation of the provisions of Article 9(1)(iii) of the TMA.

Trade mark law, case IV CSK 335/08

June 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 4 March 2009, case file IV CSK 335/08, published in Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Civil Chamber (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Izba Cywilna) of 2009, No. C, item 85, p. 161, ruled that the degree of similarity, which leads to linking (associating) both signs by relevant recipients is sufficient for the assessment of the similarity of the signs as a condition for infringement of a reputed trade mark. However, first, it is necessary to determine whether a trade mark has a status of reputable one, if the claim is based on article 296(2)(iii) 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.

2. Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(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.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 896/08

May 31st, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 28 April 2009 case file II GSK 896/08 held that the question of similarity or dissimilarity of trade marks does not belong to the realm of substantive law, but is decided based on the regulations on administrative proceedings, because it involves questions of the facts, not law. From the viewpoint of the risk misleading the customer to confusion as to the origin of the goods, in principle, the whole sign, not its individual elements are examined.

R-164202

The Court ruled that during the proceedings of this case the company was trying to protect its trade mark “VANILA FASHION Izabella Kowalska” R-164202 based on the provision of Article 132(2)(ii) and not Article 132(2)(iii) of the IPL.

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,
(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.

The SAC noted that the protection afforded to in Article 132(2)(ii) of the IPL is weaker in comparison to a renown mark.

Trade mark law, case V CSK 109/08

April 24th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

VKR Holding A/S from Horsholm sued Polish company OKPOL for trade mark infrigement and the delict of unfair competition. The suit was based on article 296(2)(iii) 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 Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments.

Infringement of the right of protection for a trade mark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(iii) a trade mark identical or similar to a renowned trade mark 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 trade mark.

The suit was also based on Article 3(1) the 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 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.

The District Court ruled that the figurative element of the trade mark in question, and its characteristic composition, have more influence on consumer awareness and subconscious than does their verbal aspect and that it is therefore necessary to protect VKR Holding’s brand, even if there are differences between the competing signs in verbal aspects. The court held that the signs are similar and that VELUX, being the renowned one, should benefit from the increased legal protection, as compared to “normal” i.e. the later mark of OKPOL company. The Polish company did not agree with such findings and filed an appeal complaint.

R-63259

The Court of Appeal in its judgment of 3 October 2007, shared the conclusions and assessments of the court of first instance that VELUX brand has the status of a reputable and renowned trade mark, and that word-figurative sign OKPOL is similar to VELUX which brings the risk of association between these signs. The risk of confusion is determined by the dominant element that both marks share – the red rectangle. According to the Court there is a similarity between disputed trade marks because of the overall visual impression and there is no significant difference in the word characters. The Court of Appeal also agreed for the admissibility of granting the protection under article 3(1) of the CUC because OKPOL’s action were in Court’s opinion very parasitic. In the Court’s view such behaviour was based on taking the advantage of VELUX’s renown and should be deemed an act of unfair competition, as behaviour contrary to the principles of good practices, which should be based honesty in business.

The Polish company filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland in which it asked three important questions:
(a) May a person try to prohibit the use of a registered trade mark, referring to the right of registration of another trade mark?
(b) Is the protection of well-known/renowned trade marks based on the article 296(2)(iii) of the IPL or may it be protected also with reference to the provisions of the Act on combating unfair competition?
(c) How far one person can monopolize the principle of creating trade marks, especially word-figurative trade marks in relation to commonly encountered combination of colours and shapes that are used on the market?

The Polish Supreme Court in its judgment of 23 October 2008 case file V CSK 109/08 agreed with the lower courts that the risk of association should be based on similiarity of figurative elements that both trade marks share. In court’s opinion, the overall visual impression is the basis for creating a positive image of VELUX products and it decides on the risk of association, in consequence, enabling for the parasitic use of the mark by the Polish company and which also led to dilution of the distinctive character and reputation associated with the VELUX trade mark.

R-183931

The Court also ruled that, if the use of a registered trade mark infringes on a previously registered trade mark, the infringer should refrain from using his right of protection because it is not a subject to protection based on rules of the civil law. The protection granted by the Polish Patent Office has only a formal aspect and it is governed by the administrative proceedings. In case of trade mark infringement it is up to the civil court to decide during the civil proceedings whether trade mark that was registered later should be afforded legal protection. There is no reason and no need to file a request for invalidation of the right of protection before the PPO.

In the answer to the second question the SC based its answer on the wording of Article 1(2) of the IPL.

The provisions of this Law shall not prejudice the protection of the subject matter referred to in paragraph (1)(i) [i.e. the relationships in the field of inventions, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, geographical indications and topographies of integrated circuits], provided for in other legal acts.

The protection of renowned trade marks is afforded by both acts. As regards “monopolization”, the SC ruled that the Polish company was banned from using a sign that associates to a specific sign used by the VKR Holding A/S. Accordingly no-one was granted a protection right to the principle of creating a trade mark.

Trade mark law, case I CSK 96/08

March 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the shade of the recent opinion of Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston QC given to the Court of Justice of the European Communities in case C‑529/07, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH, here is the story of couple of judgments decided in the recent suits brought against the Polish company Terravita by the Swiss company Chocoladenfabriken Lindt & Sprüngli, AG from Kilchberg in Switzerland.

Lindt's hare

Lindt & Sprüngli requested the Polish court to prohibit Terravita from offering, marketing or storage chocolate products with a characteristic shape of a seated hare, wrapped in metail foil with clearly marked drawings of nose, bandoline, eyes, ears and tail with bow placed on the neck. Lindt also asked the court to stop the defendant using or affixing “Terravita hare” or its image in advertising and commercial documents, and an order that the defendant withdraw the “Terravita hare” from the market, requiring the defendant to destroy all packagings, packaging designs and dies, molds and other devices intended to produce and direct wrapping the “Terravita hare”.

The District Court in Warsaw, the Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs (in Polish: Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie Wydzial XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych) in its judgment of 22 September 2005 dismissed the action. The court held that the conditions set out in article 9(1)(b) of the CTMR were not met. In the court’s opinion “Goldhase”, “Lindt” and “Terravita” signs that appear on the respective products differentiated them significantly and hence there is no risk of consumer’s confusion. The average consumer of chocolate hares does not perceive the origin of the goods only on the basis of the shape of a hare, but also on the basis of other important and distinguishing elements, including the mark placed on the product, the color of the packaging, its price, the trade mark identifying the manufacturer. The average consumer sees the difference in colour of the packaging of chocolate hares, and these were different in this case. Lindt’s packaging of the hare has the color of gold, red and brown, and Terravita’s are in silver. In addition, the District Court indicated that according to article 159a(5) of the CTMR, the defendant has only the right to prohibit the use of a trade mark on the territory of the Republic of Poland.

Terravita's hare

Lindt brought an appeal. The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 6 July 2006 case file I ACa 616/07 dismissed the case. The Court held that the shape and the colour did not inform about the origin of the goods. The form of a sitting hare, Easter eggs or bells do not have a distinctive characteristic. The court similarly assessed the coloring of the aluminum foil placed on chocolate hares. The colour of silver and gold are typical for chocolate products. In this case, the only distinctive elements of both products were sings “Goldhase Lindt” and “Terravita” and they were dissimilar. Accordingly there was no risk of consumers confusion as regards the orgin of goods.

Lind brought a cassation complaint to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland. The Court, in its judgment of 13 April 2007, case file I CSK 16/07, ordered the Appellate Court to reconsider the case. The Supreme Court has interpreted the EU law, pointing to the need for a comprehensive assessment of similarity of the disputed signs. Only such an assessment would determine whether there is a risk of confusion.

The Court of Appeal, after rehearing the case, changed its judgment in favour of Lindt. The court found that the Golden hare was introduced by Lindt on the Polish market in 1997 (16 pieces), and 240 pieces in 1998. On March 1999, Terravita purchased in Germany the same form as the form used by Lindt and began producing and marketing of chocolate hares. Therefore the disputed hares share the same shape and size. Both are packaged in foil – gold, or silver, both have a ribbon tied to the neck in bow but Terravita’s is printed on the foil and there is no bell. The Court of Appeal stated that the condition for the likelihood of confusion has been met. The court stressed that Lindt’s Gold hare is well known among consumers of chocolate products. Therefore, there was no doubt to believe that Lindt’s hare has a huge recognition among consumers of chocolate products, especially if its presence on the market was established for more than nine years. With regard to the Terravita silver hare the Court of Appeal held that, although the latter figure was produced using the same form as used by the Lindt, and thus both hares are having the same shape and size but additional drawings and elements preclude similarities.

This time, Terravita brought a cassation complaint. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 3 October 2008, case file I CSK 96/08 held that in the circumstances of this case, there is no doubt that disputed hares are not identical and only its shape is the same, since they are manufactured from the same form. However on the foil of both hares, in a prominent place, one may find adequately put signs “Lindt Goldhase” or “Terravita”, which in fact makes the likelihood of consumer confusion practically excluded. The Court cited its earlier case law. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 1 February 2001, case file I CKN 1128/98, published at OSNC 2001, No. 9, item. 136, held that if word-figurative trade marks are used on the market then the word elements of such signs should have been attributed the distinvtice characteristics. The SC in its judgment 8 April 2003, case file IV CKN 22/01, published at OSP 2004, No. 5, item 61, held that in case of word-figurative trade marks the word element has the distinctive characteristics because it determines the ease of assimilation and the perception by the public. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 November 2003, case file I CK 176/02 (unpublished) excluded the risk of confusion in a situation where bottles used by the plaintiff and the defendant had the same shape (as in the facts of this case these bottles came from the same form), but were labeled with various word and images elements. In conclusion, the Court held that in the case of two identical products, one of which concerns the Community trade mark, the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of article 9(1)(b) of CTMR does not exist, if the other characteristics of goods, in particular bearing the word or image, allow them to be clearly distinguished.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 10/08

February 10th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 7 November 2002, the Polish company DAKAR from Krasne by/Rzeszów applied for word trade mark registration for DAKAR in class 3 for goods such as preparations for cleaning and maintenance of upholstery and body of a car, cosmetics for cars, in class 27 for goods such as car rugs and also in class 37 for services such as maintenance, repair, overhaul, cleaning, and car tuning. The Polish Patent Office registered this sign (R-174205) in its decision of 6 June 2006. French company (société par action simplifiée) PARIS-DAKAR filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection based on article 132(2)(iii) 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.

2. A right of protection for a trade mark shall not be granted, if the trade mark:
(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 trade marks accordingly.

The French company claimed that the PARIS-DAKAR and DAKAR brands are widely known beacause of the world-wide popular rally which has around thirty years of tradition. In PARIS-DAKAR opinion the Polish company applied for trade mark protection knowingly. It works in the cars trade which may causing a risk of association between the registered mark and the French company’s brand and it has been done in order to use its popularity and reputation.

R-174205

The Polish company argued that, when it applied for trade mark registration, the indication Paris-Dakar was usually associated with the rally, not “Dakar” itself. In addition, there are other trade mark registrations consisting of Dakar word, which means that such sign may function on the market.

On 9 December 2008, the Polish Patent Office postponed the hearing in this case case file Sp. 10/08, and ordered the French company to supplement its evidence.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 214/08

December 21st, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 7 February 1996, the American company Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol has applied before the Polish Patent Office (PPO) to register the word-figurative trade mark “TIFFANY & BROADWAY, Inc.” R-153643 in class 3 for goods such as hair care preparations, washing and cleaning preparations, teeth cleaning preparations, shoe polish, skin-care preparations, dish washing preparations, deodorants, perfumes, eau de Cologne, in class 5 for goods such as dietetic substances adapted for medical use and food for babies, in class 8 for goods such as cutlery and razors, in class 16 for paper tablecloths, in class 18 for trunks and suitcases, umbrellas and parasols, saddlery, belts, gallantry made of leather and imitation leather as well as for goods in classes 24, 25, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. The PPO granted the application on 1 April 2004. In this case the term of 8 years of trade mark application proceedings was not a joke at all.

The cancellation proceedings were started by another American company – Tiffany & Co. from New York – based on article 8(1) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments.

A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
(i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;

The New York’s company claimed that its trade marks had a reputation and were famous and that the Tiffany & Broadway registration was made in bad faith, leading to the watering down (early Polish translation of dilution concept) of Tiffany’s trade marks. The PPO agreed and invalidated the contested trade mark. Tiffany & Broadway appealed to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The company noted that Tiffany & Co. did not provide evidence of any business activity in Poland and that none of New York’s company trade marks had been registered in Poland. According to Tiffany & Broadway article 8(1) does not provide protection for famous marks, or marks that should be protected despite the absence of registration. The PPO responded that although it is true that the goods that are signed by Tiffany & Co trade marks are available in Poland only in the secondary circulation/market, but its trade marks are renowned and associated and perceived by consumers with luxury goods, among other things, thanks to the novel and the movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s“.

The Voivodeship Administratice Court in Warsaw dismissed the appeal in its judgment of 24 October 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 214/08. The Court held that there is no doubt regarding the reputation of TIFFANY trade mark. There are very few so strong and famous brands. In the court’s opinion the Tiffany’s trade mark is very attractive and it has huge advertising value. Tiffany has also proved its international reputation and it was not obliged to prove its existence specifically in Poland, because, in the Court’s view, the reputation is international/world wide – across borders. The VAC held that Tiffany & Broadway was aware of the existence of Tiffany’s reputation and trade mark registration for Tiffany & Broadway could lead to dilution of Tiffany’s trade marks.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 233/07

December 19th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 25 July 2001, Polish entrepreneur Leokadia Matuszewska from Wroclaw performing her business under the firm MADERA has applied for trade mark registration for word-figurative sign SHARP in class 9 for goods such as diving cylinders, divers’ suits, diving suits, diving gloves, diving masks, life jackets, diving apparatus, breathing apparatus, except for artificial respiration, breathing apparatus for underwater swimming, life buoys, signalling buoys, in class 25 for goods such as anti-sweat underwear, sweat-absorbent underclothing, ski boots, football shoes, caps, leg warmers, gymnastic shoes, bathing caps, bath sandals, bathing suits, bath robes, bathing trunks, cyclists’ clothing, water ski suits, beach shoes, sports shoes, waterproof clothing, headbands, socks, briefs, shorts, clothing for gymnastics, and in class 35 for goods such as business and service transactions agency, trade contractors’ agency in the field of skiing equipment and accessories, table tennis equipment, lawn tennis equipment and squash equipment, snowboard, windsurfing, ant-swear clothing, socks, sports shoes, shoe impregnants, clothing, tents, tourist fuels and fittings, bicycles and bicycle accessories, mountain tourism, swimming and diving apparatus and equipment, paragliding and equipment, organization of exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes, trade fairs, marketing in this field. On August 4, 2005, The Polish Patent Office has granted the right of protection for Sharp R-167147 trade mark.

Japanese company Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha has filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection claiming it was granted in violation of article 8(1) and (2) 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.

A trademark shall not be registrable if:
(i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;
(ii) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties;

The request had to be based on the old act because the trade mark application was filed while the old act was in force. The Polish Patent Office in its decision of 3 July 2009 case Sp. 233/07 invalidated the registration.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 361/06

December 12th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 9 July 1998, the Polish company called “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL Spólka z o. o.” (PUTI) applied for trade mark reigstration for word-figurative sign “i INTEL” in class 37 for services such as: electric appliance installation and repair, fire alarm installation and repair, burglar alarm installation and repair, installation and repair of extinguishing and smoke ventilation systems, installation and repair of access control systems, and in class 38 for industrial television. The Polish Patent Office has granted the protection rights in its decision of 9 December 2002. On 21 July 2003, Intel Corporation has filed an opposition against the PPO’s decision. Since the trade mark application was filed while 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, was in force, so the opposition had to be based on its article 8(1) and (2) and article 9(1)(i) and (ii).

Article 8
A trademark shall not be registrable if:
(i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of society coexistence;
(ii) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties;

Article 9
(1) Registration of a trademark for goods of the same kind shall not be permissible where:
(i) it resembles a mark registered on behalf of another enterprise to such an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;
(ii) it is similar to a trademark that is well known in Poland as a trademark for goods of another enterprise to an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;

To support its opposition, Intel Corp. has provided arguments that a sign is applied for or registered in contrary to the principles of society coexistence if it seeks to use or to undermine the reputation of other trade mark, regardless of the nature of the goods or services to which it refers. Intel Corp. successfully argued that Intel is word trade mark which is well-known and reputable. It is widely recognized and valued as a synonym for the highest quality products branded by this sign (or its derivatives) in the IT sector. The widespread knowledge of that trade was also confirmed in the Polish Patent Office’s decision in early 1994. The features and the highest quality of Intel brand products have also to be attributed to the Intel Inside trade mark because of its equally vast, global popularity and strong positive associations among customers. Intel R-93693 and Intel Inside R-86431 trade marks were registered in Poland in priority, respectively of 8 November 1990 and 18 June 1991.

“i Intel” is a sign which has a distinctive part consisting of Intel sign which is similar to Intel Copr. trade marks. It leads consumers to think that there is an association between Intel Corporation and a disputed sign, consequently, there is a risk of confusion as to the origin of goods or services which are identified by the disputed mark. According to Intel Corp., the use of the contested trade mark by PUTI was based on the reputation and the widely recognized quality of Intel trade mark. PUTI registration was made in favour of its marketing business and for the economic benefits of the Polish company. This kind of behavior also brings the risk of confusion among consumers as to the identity, trade and economic links and between Intel Corporation and PUTI. In addition, Intel Corporation has filed the explanatory memorandum arguing that “i Intel” sign violates the applicant’s personal rights. The firm (protected as personal rights under the Polish Civil Code) is the name under which Intel Corporation conducts its business, it is also the reputation of a company, to which the applicant has worked since 1968 (the establishment of Intel Corporation in the U.S.).

Since fields of business activities of PUTI and Intel Corp. did not overlap, The Polish firm argued that Intel Corp. had not demonstrated that the disputed trade mark makes difficult for Intel to use its company name. PUTI has also argued that the opposition should not be based on article 9 of the PTA since the disputed trade mark is designated for services not goods. PUTI argued that it has been using the name “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL” in 1989 and 1990, which was before Intel Corporation had registered its trade marks in Poland.

The Polish Patent Office invalidated “i Intel” trade mark in its decision of 19 October 2005. It was proved before the PPO that PUTI was founded on 23 July 1997 as a limited liability company, and previously (from 1 November 1983) it had operated on the market in the form of a civil company and the name Intel had been used for the first time in its firm in 1994. In PPO’s opinion, PUTI’s use of “i Intel” sign with ® before trade mark registration was granted was also a proof of taking the advantage of reputation of Intel Corp. trade marks, which was contrary to the principles of society coexistence that were defined in this case as a matter of fairness trade.

PUTI appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 April 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 126/06 dismissed the appeal. The court held that trade marks of Intel Corp. that were registered with the earlier priority are renowned in Poland in relation to the persons involved in electronics, computers, electrical and electronic equipment of various kinds, and PUTI’s application for the contested trade mark was intended to use the reputation of Intel Corp. trade mark portfolio. In court’s opinion the Polish Patent Office has had to compare these trade marks with the disputed sign in aural verbal and visual aspects and it has reasonably concluded that there is a clear likeness between them, and given that the signs are used for determining goods, which are compatible with regard to services to which the disputed trade mark is intended use, so there was a condition for the inadmissibility of the disputed trade mark registration within the meaning of article 9.

PUTI filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court. However, the Court dismissed the case in its judgment of 15 May 2007 case file II GSK 361/06. SAC explicitly held that Intel is well-known trade mark on the Polish market (strong sign) and its reputation was not questioned even by the Polish company. Consequently, it should be considered that the danger of confusion between trade marks by customers, is the greater, the more well-known (or as the Court also said – standardized) is a trade mark with an earlier priority, because customers’ memory directs them in a particulary easy way, to trade marks which are well-known on the market.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1110/08

September 6th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its recent judgment of 24 July 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 238/08, dismissed Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation’s appeal against the Polish Patent Office (PPO) decision of 19 March 2007, cases files Sp. 68/04 and Sp. 69/04, regarding the invalidation 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 invalidation proceedings were started by Tiffany & Co. from New York. The New York’s company alleged not only the similarity of signs but also a breach of its over-150-year reputation applied to jewellery products. During one of the hearings before the Polish Patent Office, Tiffany & Co. provided evidence of a witness as regards the reputation and universal knowledge of Tiffany & Co. brand. The witness stressed that, although in post-war Poland the Tiffany brand was not present on the Polish market, the press (women’s magazines and other publications) wrote about the Tiffany & Co. as the provider of luxurious jewellery. The court has affirmed the PPO’s findings that the TIFFANY trade mark has the reputation even if it was not registered in Poland. Judge Olga Żurawska-Matusiak decided that renowned signs or snobbish signs (sic!) do not need to be widely known to the public. It is a sufficient factor if they are known to the relevant public, to whom such signs are addressed, those are consumers who are interested in buying luxury goods. If there exists an international reputation of a sign – it also includes Poland.

Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation 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 annulled the questioned judgment and remitted the case 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.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07

July 30th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH from Hamburg registered the trade mark BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 in class 34 for goods such as tobacco, tobacco products, smokers’ articles, cigarettes, cigarillos, matches. The owner of the following trade marks: BOSS R-66417, registered for goods in classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 28, HUGO BOSS R-66418, registered for goods in classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 34, BOSS HUGO BOSS R-156696, registered for goods in class 34 and the word-figurative mark BOSS R-82792 filed before the Polish Patent Office a request for the invalidation of the right of protection for the trade mark BOSS LIGHTS. The PPO found that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion with reference to the origin of goods in the market turnover. The PPO also held that the registration of the BOSS LIGHTS trade mark violated the prior rights of HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG, including its company name.

Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 September 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 2195/06 sided with the PPO’s decision. Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken referred to the last instance and it has filed a cassation complaint before the Polish Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 May 2008, case file II GSK 506/07, gave an interpretation and clarified what is a famous (renown or reputed) trade mark and how to prove the fame of a trade mark. The SAC agreed with the view that famous trade mark has a reputation and that, besides its recognition, it must also be 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 repealed the contested judgment and sent the case back to the VAC for reconsideration. See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1483/08“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 98/07

July 6th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 8 November 2004, the Polish Patent Office received a request from JOOP GmbH on the invalidation of the right of protection for JUUPI! R-103654 trade mark owned by “AQUAREL” Kosiorek Spółka Jawna. The applicant has based its legal interest on the fact that questioned sign is similar to JOOP! R-64463 trade mark, registered on his behalf with an earlier priority, and to international trade mark registration JOOP! IR-739262.

The request was based on provisions of article 165 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, 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.

Article 165
1. A request for invalidation of the right of protection shall not be admissible:
(i) on the ground that it conflicts with an earlier trademark or the personal or economic rights of the requesting party have been infringed, where the requesting party has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of the registered trademark while being aware of such use,
(ii) after the expiration of a period of five years from the grant of the right of protection, where the right in question was granted in breach of the provisions of Article 129, however in consequence of its use the trademark has acquired a distinctive character,
(iii) on the ground that it conflicts with a well-known trademark, where the party entitled to the well-known trademark has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years of the use of the registered trademark, in the use of the latter while being aware of such use.

2. Paragraph (1) shall not apply, where the holder of the right has acquired the right in bad faith.

The PPO dismissed the request. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 October 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 1339/06 rejected the appeal filed by JOOP GmbH and upheld the decision of the PPO. JOOP filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 July 2007 case file II GSK 98/07 held that “being aware of the use of the mark” means that the applicant, who requested for the invalidation based on provisions of article 165 of the IPL, had knowledge about the use of that trade mark by its proprietor. One cannot extend the scope of this statutory condition for “the possibility” or “the duty” to finding out or getting acquitant that such mark is being used by its proprietor. The Court ruled that it’s impossible to accept the existence of a general legal obligation that could be put on entrepreneurs to “track the competition” in order to be aware of the use of different trade marks on the market.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1791/07

June 19th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In March 2005 the Polish Patent Office (PPO) issued a decision in which it granted a trade mark right for the word-figurative MILEA trade mark R-162082 in classes 3, 5 and 16 to Ogólnopolskie Centrum Dystrybucji HURT-SERWIS Spółka z o.o.. Nivea Polska Spółka Akcyjna – the owner of NIVEA trade mark and German company Beiersdorf AG opposed this registration in classes 3 and 5. The opponents claimed that MILEA mark was confusingly similar to the NIVEA R-23977 mark for which trade mark rights have been held since 1933 and which acquired the status of a well-known trade mark, having a good reputation in the Republic of Poland. Accordingly the owner had registered MILEA mark in bad faith to take the advantage of fame and repute of the earlier mark.

This case concerned provisions of article 132(2)(iii) 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.

A right of protection for a trade mark shall not be granted, if the trade mark
… is identical or similar to a well-known trade mark 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 trade mark. The above provision shall apply to well-known trade marks accordingly.

The PPO examined both marks in the visual, aural and conceptual aspects and did not find any similarity. The owner of the mark claimed that goods for which both marks are registered differed. The PPO and the Court did follow such argumentation. The Court also ruled that present consumers are better educated and well-informed, which in consequence does not lead to confusion as regards the origin of goods. Based its findings on the fact that both marks are not similar the Court did not find any circumstance of bad faith in the owner’s action.

Judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw of 24 February 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1791/07.

Trade mark law, case II CSK 428/06

June 18th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court Civil Chamber in its judgment of 7 March 2008, case file II CSK 428/06 ruled that the fact that the company has been operating on the Polish market for several years, has a rich tradition, and its trade marks are well known because of the long-term mass production, continuous use and continuous presence in the market, advertising, and customers and that they will associate the sign and its manufacturer with a product, cannot determine the method of accepting these signs to the category of reputed trade marks.

The selection of reputable trade marks is made by using a different criterion than the one which help to distinguish a group of well-known trade marks. The Reputation of the trade mean its attractiveness, the value of advertising and the ability to stimulate the sales of goods marked. It is therefore a criterion referring to the particular quality of a mark rather than to the degree of knowledge about such sign. It expresses the opinion that a reputable sign, which – unlike trade marks used as the indication of origin – implements a “clean” function of attracting customers. In the absence of legal definition, a reputed trade mark should therefore be assess according to the abovementioned criteria, rather than by knowledge in the market that provides the basis for a well known trade marks.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 845/05

June 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Valentino filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for Valentino R-137628 trade mark that was registered in classes 35 39 for Orzechowski Wiesław Firma ASTRO from Gdynia. Valentino argued that Astro infringed on the principles of social coexistence, as it sought to use the reputation of the trademarks and trade names owned by Valentino. Granting the right of protection, thus placing on the same field of economic activity a very similar trade mark would threaten the interests of Valentino, and it would be also contrary to the institution of a trade mark.

IR-645346

The PPO dismissed the opposition and ruled that Valentino did not prove the reputation of its trade marks and due to the different classes there is no risk of consumers confusion, however the goods and services are complementary. The PPO noted also that the questioned trade mark differs from these owned by Valentino because elements such as V, Val, or Zone are exposed which makes them the dominant elements in these trade marsk, and they attract the attention of the public, turning their attention from the less visible Valentino word. Valentino filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 November 2005 case file VI SA/Wa 845/05 overturned the decision and held it unenforceable. The VAC ruled that the most visible element in all trade marks in this case is the word Valentino, and verbal elements have the dominant position. The Court also noted that reputation of a trade mark is not dependent on the borders of individual countries or regions. The PPO should examine the evidence submitted by Valentino and it should assess the impact of the existence of a foreign reputed trade mark for its operation in Poland because Valentino could be uninterested of its expansion into the Polish territory, and in the situation if it were interested it could be overtaken by unauthorized entry. The Court agreed also that there was an infringement of the company name.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1626/05

June 8th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Toyota Corp. filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for lexus R-140774 trade mark that was registered for Lubuska Wytwórnia Wódek Gatunkowych “POLMOS” w Zielonej Górze for goods in Class 33 such as alcohols. Toyota argued that this registration was made in bad faith as parasitic use of the reputation of its renown trademarks. The PPO dismissed the opposition and Toyota filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 March 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 1626/05 overturned the questioned decision and held it unenforceable. The VAC ruled that the reputation of a trade mark means nothing more than its attractive strength, the value of advertising and generally positive perceptions of consumers. The protection of reputed trade marks may occur outside the similarity of the goods. Furthermore, as it was noted in the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court of 8 November 2005, case file VI SA/Wa 845/05, the reputation of a trade mark is not dependent on the borders of countries or regions.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 161/07

May 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office issued a decision case act signature Sp. 161/07, regarding the registration of Chantal trade mark. Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe Chantal Roman Godek applied for CHANTAL trade mark registration in classes 3 and 5 in 2002. The PPO issued its positive decision and registered CHANTAL R-170165 trade mark on 16 December 2006. Chanel opposed. The PPO acknowledged the reputation of Chanel mark and similarity of goods, however the Opposition Board also concluded that both marks are not alike in this manner that it would lead to the risk of consumers confusion. The Board also noted that the clientele to which those products are directed differs. The decision is not final and is not binding.

Trade mark law, II GSK 298/07

March 19th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2000 the PHU Makroterm K. Wąchała & A. Wąchała applied for the registration of the figurative and word mark MAKROTERM in classes 6, 9, 11 and 42. The Makro Cash and Carry company, who applied for the registration of the figurative and word mark MAKRO in classes 1–45 on 22 March 2000, opposed to the registration. Upon finding the observations groundless, the case was then decided by the Polish Patent Office (PPO).

Makro Cash and Carry claimed that the disputable mark imitated the MAKRO mark, used its renown and infringed the company’s right to a company name. Makroterm in turn said there was no likelihood of confusion since the disputed mark did not use the renown of the MAKRO mark because of the fact that Macro Cash and Carry failed to prove the MAKRO mark had been renowned. The Makroterm representative also said the MAKRO mark had not been universally known.

The PPO overruled MAKRO’s opposition. It decided that in assessing similarity one should not focus solely on one element – the “makro” word. It also said the MAKROTERM mark was one word combining the “makro” and “term” words into an original name that moreover had been put in a colourful design. According to the Office both marks brought about different associations in the minds of the relevant public. It decided that the marks themselves differed and did not examine similarity in goods offered by the companies. The Office also pointed out that the provided advertising materials concerned only the MAKRO CASH AND CARRY mark. With regard to the infringement of the right to a company name it decided the name was a compound one so there could not have been any infringement.

Makro Cash and Carry filed an appeal against the decision of the Polish Patent Office. It read that the Office had not assessed the similarity of goods offered by both companies and with identical goods the criteria for assessing similarity of marks are much stricter. Makro Cash and Carry also said the Polish Patent Office assessed only the differences but it should have assessed similarities.

Makroterm in turn underscored that the universal recognition of the MAKRO sign had not been adequately demonstrated and that the mark had been recognized by a half of the relevant public. It also questioned the research commissioned in 2006 by the MAKRO company.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, in a judgment of 22 March 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 1325/06, rejected the appeal. The Court held that the PPO had already compared the marks with regard to all three planes and decided that the marks bore fundamental differences. It decided that the “makro” word was a common one and had little distinctive value. Apart from that it found the “term” word much more distinctive, which together with colourful design of the MAKROTERM mark made both marks different.

MAKRO filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The Supreme Court in the judgment of 15 January 2008, case file II GSK 298/07 fully agreed with the earlier judgement of the Voivodeship Court and the decision of the Polish Patent Office. It also decided there was no similarity between the marks that would lead to a confusion neither on the phonetic, nor conceptual, nor figurative plane. The mark also had not infringed the appellant’s right to the name of his company.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 207/07

December 4th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 21 November 2007, case file II GSK 207/07, held that even if the reputed mark is protected against the use on any goods, if this would bring a user an unfair advantage or it would be detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the trade mark, it does not mean that the both signs at issue shouldn’t be a subject to examination to determine their similarity or lack of it. The case concerned a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to “dodoni A MOŻE MY JESTEŚMY DLA CIEBIE LEPSI COLA” trade mark R-149636, that was registered for Pepsi Corp. The SAC also ruled that the findings that both trade marks are not similar also implies that there is a lack of association between these trade marks by potential recipients.