Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: generic sign

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1033/10

February 22nd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is another part of the saga of trade marks consisting of numerals. On March 2003, Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o.o. applied for the word trade mark 100 PANORAMICZNYCH Z-261876 for goods in Class 16 such as newspapers, charade magazines, booklets, brochures, flyers, calendars, posters, exercise books.

The Polish Patent Office decided that it cannot grant rights of protection for signs which cannot constitute a trade mark, or are devoid of sufficient distinctive character. The PPO reminded that the following are considered as being devoid of sufficient distinctive character (i) signs which are not capable of distinguishing, in trade, the goods for which they have been applied, (ii) signs which consist exclusively or mainly of elements which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, origin, quality, quantity, value, intended purpose, manufacturing process, composition, function or usefulness of the goods, (iii) signs which have become customary in the current language and are used in fair and established business practices. TECHNOPOL filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 410/10. TECHNOPOL filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 November 2011 case file II GSK 1033/10 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. The SAC agreed with allegations of violation of administrative proceedings that was based on erroneous findings that the disputed trade mark could not acquire secondary meaning. The Court noted that when the PPO is assessing whether or not a sign has a sufficient distinctive character, any circumstances accompanying its use in marking the goods in trade should be taken into consideration. Grant of a right of protection under previously mentioned rules may not be denied in particular where prior to the date of filing of a trademark application with the PPO, the trademark concerned has acquired, in consequence of its use, a distinctive character in the conditions of the regular trade. This indicates the possibility of acquiring secondary meaning by descriptive signs. In principle, secondary meaning can only be acquired by signs that are devoid of any distinctiveness, including descriptive or generic designations. Thus, the mere fact that the sign is purely informational does not preclude the acquisition of secondary meaning. Descriptive signs refer to the qualities or characteristics that may affect goods from various manufacturers.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1346/10

December 13th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark BIO-ACTIVE R-169823, in part for goods in Class 3, i.e. body care cosmetics. The owner BIO-ACTIVE DYSTRYBUCJA Sp. z o.o. filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 19 April 2010 case file VI 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.

BIO-ACTIVE DYSTRYBUCJA Sp. z o.o. filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 December 2011 case file II GSK 1346/10 dismissed it. The SAC ruled that widespread availability of descriptive signs and indications is in the public interest.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 562/11

November 4th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word trade mark flex fuga Z-297616 applied for by MAPEI POLSKA Sp. z o.o. for goods in Class 1 such as adhesives based on plastics and resins, silicone mortars, for goods in Class 6 such as decorative moldings, profiles, metal profiles, and for goods in Class 19 such as decorative moldings, profiles, profiles not made of metal, masonry mortars, dry plaster, mortars for grouting and welding.

The PPO decided that this trade mark is devoid of sufficient distinctive character and it lacks any additional elements, such as verbal or graphic, which would allow potential purchasers to identify the goods with the source of the origin of goods. The PPO noted that a fuga is a weld/joint between adjacent wall elements and flex means flexible in English.

MAPEI filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 August 2009 case file VI SA/WA 1017/09. MAPEI decided to file a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 January 2011 case file II GSK 19/10 overturned the judgment of the VAC and held that the VAC relied on the erroneous assumption that the buyers (users) of goods bearing the trademark at issue are those who know English or use the Internet every day, which was not supported by any evidence. Besides, the trade mark flex fuga was applied for not only various types of mortars but also for various types of decorative moldings, profiles, sections of metal and non-metallic, and in relation to those goods it is difficult, to talk about “cut or bent” joint or weld.

The case went back to the Voivodeship Administrative Court. The VAC in its judgment of 9 May 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 562/11 held that the fact that the Polish Patent Office has granted the rights of protection for a number of trade marks containing the word “flex” or the word “flex” in combination with other words, should prompt the PPO to a broader examination of the merits of the MAPEI’s trade mark application. Thus, the PPO’s view that even if MAPEI relied on other decisions issued by the Polish Patent Office, it could not affect the assessment of the submitted application and its final examination, is not justified. The VAC noted that the PPO could change its position on the regularity of the grant of rights of protection, in which one element was the word “flex”, but it should justify such change in detail. The case law of the PPO may therefore be subject to change, if the authority demonstrates that there are reasonable grounds. However, any unfounded inconstancy of the opinion of the public body constitutes an infringement of the administrative procedure, because it may result in undermining citizens’ trust in state bodies and adversely affect the legal culture of citizens, and thereby cause a breach of the constitutional rule that all persons shall be equal before the law and all persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 553/10

August 19th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Przedsiębiorstwo Przemysłu Spirytusowego POLMOS w Warszawie applied for the right of protection for the word trade mark „spirytus rektyfikowany” (in English: rectified spirit) Z-204843. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection. The PPOo ruled that this designation is purely descriptive. It informs about the type of product and how it is produced, and while examined as a whole, this sign does not have any sufficient distinctive character in relation to goods for which it was filed. Therefore, it will not allow for the identification of the goods available on the market in terms of their origin. The PPO decided also that this sign is devoid of any characteristic features that may engrave into memory of the recipient and lead to the association with the entrepreneur, from which they originate. The recipient buying the goods bearing the sign in question will be informed about the characteristics of the product, not its origin. POLMOS claimed that „spirytus rektyfikowany” has acquired secondary meaning.

The PPO did not agree with the argument that a number of word-figurative trade marks containing the term “rectified spirit” that were registered for POLMOS supports the position that this trade mark has acquired secondary meaning, because all these trade marks were registered by the PPO because of its graphics and not the distinctive character of the disputed sign. The PPO concluded that the information on the secondary meaning posted on Wikipedia website can not be considered fully reliable evidence and Wikipedia cannot be treated as the professional source of information. The PPO noted that the fact that POLMOS was able to register the word mark “rectified spirit” in the United States has no impact on the examination of trademark application Z-204843, because the Polish system is completely autonomous. The PPO noted that even POLMOS is advertising its main product as a word-figurative trade mark, where both words are placed on the green-yellow label.

POLMOS filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 December 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1859/09. POLMOS filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 May 2011 case file II GSK 553/10 dismissed the complaint. The Court cited the Dictionary of Polish language, published by PWN SA, the Internet edition, in which the word spirit is defined as a generic name of a specific type of alcoholic product – a high percentage water solution of ethyl alcohol. The word “rectified” is as an adjective derived from the noun “rectification” and it means the separation of liquid mixtures by repeated evaporation and condensation. The concept of rectification is commonly associated with a technological process, even if the recipient does not know the specific method. In conjunction with the first of the words in the trade mark in question it is associated with a way to produce a particular product. The two words – “rectified spirit” – contain only information about the type of product and how to produce it, and as such do not have sufficient distinctive character. The SAC shared in this regard the view expressed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 June 2008 case file II GSK 185/08. See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 185/08“. The Court ruled that there was no reason to assign a long use and the reputation only to the “rectified spirit” designation as separated from other elements of a word-figurative trade mark that was corresponding to the label on the bottle. The SAC noted that a trade mark is an indivisible whole. The use of a word-figurative trade mark does not mean that association between the word element and a particular entrepreneur arise in the minds of the consumer.

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 the trade mark kucyk pony R-139097 that was 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 trade mark “kucyk pony” R-139097 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 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 the trade mark HERITAGE FILMS. 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.

Internet domains, case C-569/08

June 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justic of European Union in its judgment of 3 June 2010, case C‑569/08, Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v. Richard Schlicht, ruled on bad faith registration of EU domain names.

1. Article 21(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration must be interpreted as meaning that bad faith can be established by circumstances other than those listed in Article 21(3)(a) to (e) of that regulation.

2. In order to assess whether there is conduct in bad faith within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation No 874/2004, read in conjunction with Article 21(3) thereof, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case and, in particular, the conditions under which registration of the trade mark was obtained and those under which the .eu top level domain name was registered.

With regard to the conditions under which registration of the trade mark was obtained, the national court must take into consideration, in particular:

– the intention not to use the trade mark in the market for which protection was sought;

– the presentation of the trade mark;

– the fact of having registered a large number of other trade marks corresponding to generic terms; and

– the fact of having registered the trade mark shortly before the beginning of phased registration of .eu top level domain names.

With regard to the conditions under which the .eu top level domain name was registered, the national court must take into consideration, in particular:

– the abusive use of special characters or punctuation marks, within the meaning of Article 11 of Regulation No 874/2004, for the purposes of applying the transcription rules laid down in that article;

– registration during the first part of the phased registration provided for in that regulation on the basis of a mark acquired in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings; and

– the fact of having applied for registration of a large number of domain names corresponding to generic terms.

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.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1655/08

August 27th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 7 February 2003, Browar Belgia Sp. z o.o. from Kielce applied to register the word trade mark GINGERS Z-260753 for goods such as beer, beer-based drinks, juices, syrups, essences for making beverages, soft drinks, preparations for the production and manufacture of beverages, extracts and extracts of hop in class 32.

In a letter dated 14 May 2004, the Polish Patent Office informed the applicant that there was an obstacle to granting the right of protection for GINGERS mark, since it is an informative sign which has insufficient distinctive character to enable it to distinguish the products of one undertaking from other companies, under normal market conditions.

In its letter of 14 June 2004 Browar Belgia argued that, contrary to the assertion of the PPO, the name “gingers” associated with the list of goods covered by the application is not a generic term and does not perform only an informative function. Browar Belgia noted that the word “gingers” has multiple meanings in English language and can be understood as, inter alia, the colour red/red-headed and also as verve, the zest or liveness, and the word “ginger” is just one of many translations into Polish. The name GINGERS should also be regarded as fanciful because it has the “s” letter placed at the end of a word, while the noun “GINGER” is singular. Moreover, it is unreasonable to say that all consumers of beer and soft drinks in Poland speak fluent English and will associate English word with its counterpart in the Polish language, ie ginger.

In a letter of 17 October 2005, the PPO expressed the view based on articles 129(1)(ii), article 129(2)(i) and (ii) and article 131(1)(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.

1. Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs which:
(ii) are devoid of sufficient distinctive character.

Article 129(2)(i) and (ii)
2. Subject to Article 130, the following shall be considered as being devoid of sufficient distinctive character:
(i) signs which are not capable of distinguishing, in trade, the goods for which they have been applied,
(ii) signs which consist exclusively or mainly of elements which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, origin, quality, quantity, value, intended purpose, manufacturing process, composition, function or usefulness of the goods,

Article 131(1)(iii)
1. Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs:
(iii) which, as for their nature, may mislead the public, in particular as to the nature, properties of the goods or, with regard to paragraph (3), as to the geographic origin thereof,

The PPO noted that the mark applied for cannot be granted a right of protection due to the fact that the sign is informative for the majority of goods in class 32 and as for extracts and extracts of hops; it is a sign that it may mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of these goods. In its decision of 28 February 2007, the Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word trade mark GINGERS. The PPO noted that granting the right of protection for GINGERS word trade mark in favor of one entrepreneur would limit freedom of business activity of other market participants in the process of producing and marketing of these goods and thus hamper the business activities of other entities.

In a letter dated 11 May 2007, Browar Belgia requested a retrial, calling for the reversal of the contested decision. According to Browar Belgia, granting the right of protection for GINGERS trade mark would not limit anyone from the possibility of providing, for example, the composition of beer on the label in place designated for that purpose, but this does not mean that the composition of beer, to be specific the content of the component, is a passport to putting GINGERS into other trade marks. It was an unacceptable situation in which another party would benefit from the reputation of the trade Gingers, that was promoted by a very expensive advertising campaign. In the meantime, Browar Belgia transferred the right to trade mark application GINGERS Z-260753 to Kompania Piwowarska S.A. from Poznań. In a decision of 30 May 2008, the PPO upheld in entirety its previous decision of 2007. Browar Belgia filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw and Kompania Piwowarska joined the case.

The VAC in its judgment of 17 February 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1655/08 dismissed the complaint and ruled that the principle of free access for all traders to signs that serve to communicate information about the nature of goods, their characteristics or properties does not allow for their monopolization by a single market participant.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 642/08

March 19th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 25 October 1995, Tomasz Bednarski, the Polish entrepreneur conducting business under the company name Optyk Tomek in Warsaw, applied for the registration of the word trade mark Optometrysta (English: optometrist) in Class 42 for services such as examination of eye refraction, selection of spectacles for individual needs, selection of contact lenses for individual needs, selection of telescopic spectacles for individual needs. On August 4 1998, the trade mark was registered by the Polish Patent Office under number R-104424.

In February 2007, the President of the Executive Board of the Polish Society of Optometry and Optics informed the Polish Patent Office that the word optometrysta is a common profession name, used at least since 1983. In March 2007, the request for invalidation of the trade mark was filed by the President of the Patent Office, based on claims that the registration was granted against Article 7(2) of the old Polish Act of 31 January 1985 on Trade Marks – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments.

The only signs that shall be eligible for registration as trade marks are those that have sufficient distinctiveness in ordinary economic activity.

A sign shall not have sufficient distinctiveness if it simply constitutes a generic designation of the product, if it simply makes a statement as to the properties, quality, number, amount, weight, price, purpose, manufacturing process, time or place of production, composition, function or usefulness of the goods or any similar information that does not enable the origin of the goods to be determined.

This was in connection with Article 167(2) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), 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.

The General Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Poland or the President of the Patent Office may, in the public interest, request that the right of protection for a trade mark be invalidated or intervene in an invalidation action already pending.

According to the President of the Polish Patent Office, the trade mark Optometrysta is simply the name of a profession. The World Council of Optometry defines optometry as a healthcare profession that is autonomous, educated, and regulated (licensed/registered), and optometrists are the primary healthcare practitioners of the eye and visual system who provide comprehensive eye and vision care, which includes refraction and dispensing, detection/diagnosis and management of disease in the eye, and the rehabilitation of conditions of the visual system. In 1999 the profession was entered on to the list of professions performed in Poland, which is kept by the Ministry of Labour and the President of the Central Statistics Office.

During the hearings at the Patent Office, the owner of the mark declared that he performed the services under the mark, and according to his knowledge, the mark had not been earlier registered in the name of any other party. In view of this, he decided to apply for registration of the mark with the aim of obtaining financial benefit. The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office, by virtue of its decision of May 30 2007, case file Sp 141/07, invalidated the trade mark right. The Patent Office argued that before the date of filing an application for registration of the sign as a trade mark, it functioned as the name of a profession in the optical industry. At the date of invalidation, the subject mark does not have any distinctive character, and therefore no one should be granted the exclusive protection right for the mark, and at the same time a monopoly thereto.

Bednarski lodged a complaint with the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw (decisions of the Patent Office are subject to complaints with the Administrative Court). He questioned procedural aspects of the Patent Office’s decision, and argued that the Patent Office should base the request for invalidation on article 31 of the TMA.

The request for annulment of a right deriving from registration of a trade mark may be filed within five years of the date of registration. After the expiry of that period, such request may only be filed in respect of an owner who has obtained a registration in bad faith.

According to Bednarski, the term for filing this request terminated in 2004, and the Patent Office had not made reference to bad faith action in order to file the request for invalidation after expiry of this term. The District Administrative Court rejected the trade mark owner’s arguments. The Court, in its decision of December 13 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 1708/07, held that the five-year statutory period for filing the request for invalidation had not expired before the entry into force of the new Law on Industrial Property, which provided different regulations and opened new opportunities to file the request for invalidation. These regulations are set forth under Chapter 6 of the Law on Industrial Property entitled “Invalidation and Lapse of the Right of Protection for a Trade Mark”. Apart from exceptional circumstances specified therein, the legislature has waived the deadline for requesting invalidation proceedings. As of August 22 2001, no time limit will restrict the possibility of requesting invalidation of the right of protection. Thus, after August 22 2002, the President of the Patent Office, acting in the public interest, may at any time request the invalidation of the right of protection that was granted against the law.

Bednarski filed a cassation complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. However his motion was dismissed by virtue of a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of January 20 2009 case file II GSK 642/08. The decision is final.

Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1000/08

February 5th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the decision of 4 February 2005, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark Glazide in class 5 for goods such as anti-diabetic pharmaceutical preparations, for Farmaceutyczna Spółdzielnia Prac Galena from Wrocław.

Les Laboratoires Servier from France filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection based on articles 129(1)(ii) and 129(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 subsequent amendments.

Article 129(1)(ii)
1. Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs which:
(ii) are devoid of sufficient distinctive character.

Article 129(2)(ii)
(ii) signs which consist exclusively or mainly of elements which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, origin, quality, quantity, value, intended purpose, manufacturing process, composition, function or usefulness of the goods.

The French company claimed that the mark Glazide could not distinguish the goods for which it was registered. The mark itself presents information about the treatment of diabetes. The active ingredient (AI) in these kinds of medicine is the substance called gliclazidium (gliclazide). However, the PPO dismissed the request and the French company filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 31 October 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1000/08 dismissed it. That court held that the disputed mark may lead its recipients (doctors, pharmacists) to make some association with the AI, but it does not mean that it lacks the distinctive character. The sign differs from the AI in phonetic and visual aspects. According to the Court, the Glazide trade mark is fanciful and does not describe a type of drug. The VAC ruled that article 129(2)(ii) clearly states that only signs that are made exclusively of the elements that describe the nature or origin of goods lack distinctive character.

The judgment is not yet final. The cassation complaint was filed before the Supreme Administrative Court. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 214/09“.

Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1100/07

December 21st, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 18 December 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 1100/07 dismissed McDonald’s Corporation complaint against the Polish Patent Office’s decision and ruled that a Singapore company was allowed to register MacCoffee mark for coffee products. McDonald’s will not be allowed to “monopolize” the Mc-prefix. This judgment should make all trade mark practitioners aware of differences between legal systems. Especially when this Polish case is compared to holding in the case Quality Inns Int’l v McDonald’s Corp., 695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988). The Court ruled that Quality International’s use of the name “McSleep” infringed McDonald’s family of marks that are characterized by the use of the prefix “Mc” combined with a generic word.