Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: letter of consent

Procedural law, case VI SA/Wa 1239/11

August 7th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 1 March 1994, the company France-Euro Agro applied to the Polish Patent Office for the registration of the word trade mark SOBIESKI Z-130304 for goods in Class 33 such as alcoholic beverages except beer. In its decision of March 1997, the PPO refused to register the applied trade mark because of the similarity with the word-figurative trade mark A SOBIESKI POLISH VODKA R-85456 that was registered with the earlier priority for the same goods in Class 33. This trade mark is currently owned by BELVEDERE S.A. France-Euro Agro withdrew its request for re-examination of the case. However, on December 2005, BELVEDERE requested the PPO to repeal the refusal based on the provisions of Article 154 § 1 of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, published in 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.

A final decision, on the basis of which none of the parties acquired any rights, may be at any time repealed or amended by the public administration authority which issued the decision or by the authority of higher level if it is justified by the public interest or fair interest of the party.

The Company noted that the risk of misleading potential consumers has been eliminated as the owner of both trade marks is now the same entity. BELVEDERE argued also that the PPO does not respect the constitutional rule of law and equal treatment of entities in the application of law, because it has registered three word-figurative trade marks Jan III Sobieski SJ for BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO POLSKA TRADING Sp. z o.o., despite the existence of the earlier right of protection for the trade mark A SOBIESKI POLISH VODKA R-85456. The PPO refused to repeal the decision of 1997. The PPO emphasized that decisions taken in such proceedings are discretionary, which means that the PPO examines, whether in the particular situation, the public interest or the fair interests of a party is in favor of the repeal of the final decision. The requirements of public interest or the interests of the parties must be assessed on an individual case and must receive individualized content, resulting from the factual and legal issues. The interest of the party should be “fair” within the objective meaning i.e. it has to be justified by circumstances of the case and accepted under applicable law, also from the standpoint of public interest. According to Polish legal doctrine, the term “public interest” is not defined by the law, and the content of this concept is given by the adjudicating body. The scope of the discretion of the administrative body during the recognition of such issues is limited, for instance by the existence of general principles of administrative proceedings, such as the public interest and fair interest of citizens. The fair interests of citizens is not only deemed as the interest of parties involved in this particular case, but also the interests of other parties to the proceedings before the Patent Office, in this case those who have applied for trade marks after the refusal of March 1997. By withdrawing the request for re-examination of the matter, France-Euro Agro waived its right to appeal, which led to the ultimate end of the proceedings and allowed other entities to apply for trade mark protection. BELVEDERE filed a complaint against this decision.

R-85456

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 7 December 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1239/11 dismissed it and held that the proceedings to repeal the final decision should not be regarded as a retrial of the case. The Court held that both the institution of proceedings de novo, as well as the repeal of the final decision, are procedures used to verify the faulty decisions, that allows for setting the decision aside, in the situations specified by law, despite its finality. Given the exceptional nature of these procedures, they cannot be abused by a broad interpretation of the conditions of admissibility of their application. The overriding principle is to guarantee the sustainability of the final administrative decision. The Court agreed with the PPO that BELVEDERE could file requests for the invalidation of the rights of protection for trade marks JAN III SOBIESKI JS.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1261/10

April 9th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office in its decision of 29 January 2010 case no. DT-581/08 refused to grant the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark FILIPETTI MONTENERO SPUMANTE DEMI SEC DALLA TRADIZIONE ITALIANA Z-298140 that was applied for by Domain Menada Sp. z o.o. for goods in Class 33. The PPO decided that this trade mark is similar to the word trade marks FILIPETTI R-101614 and R-140718 owned by Belvedere S.A. Domain Menada argued that it is a part of the Belvedere Group, and provided a letter of consent. Domain Menada filed a complaint against this decision but the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of of 21 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 710/10 dismissed it. See “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 710/10“. Domain Menada filed a cassation complaint.

Z-298140

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 December 2011 case file II GSK 1261/10 ruled that the letter of consent was not binding and the PPO examined its effects in different aspects, based on gathered evidence, and it found that the letter of consent is not an exemption to grounds for refusing trade mark protection. The SAC stressed that the system of registration of trade marks under the Polish Industrial Property Law is to guarantee the protection of the interests of businesses and consumers. Under the present regulations, the Polish Patent Office may refuse to register a trade mark, despite the agreement between the professional entities that are active in business, due to the risk of misleading and confusion of consumers as to the origin of the goods from a particular entrepreneur. In this sense, the mere will of particular businesses does not directly create and shape the public policy. The PPO is a public authority that takes a decision on the registration of a trade mark, taking into account ex officio circumstances specified in the IPL. The PPO is therefore bound by the provisions of generally applicable laws, and these – as it was indicated above – protect the position and the consumer’s interest.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1378/10

March 12th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office had refused to grant the right of protection for the word trade mark PUCHATEK CHOCO Z-321348 filed by Lubella Sp. z o.o. sp. kom. ak., for goods in Class 30. Lubella provided a letter of consent, which had been granted by Maspex Sp. z o.o., the owner of the prior-registered trade marks that include word element PUCHATEK. The PPO decided that it cannot consider the letter of consent, inter alia, for the reason that commercial relationships between the entities are not permanent. The use of a letter of consent in such a case could potentially cause problems when dealing with its withdrawal when the cooperation between the entities has ceased to exist. The PPO also remind that the Polish Industrial Property law provides for the institution of the letter of consent, only to signs whose protection lapsed. Lubella filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 July 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 600/10. Lubella filed a cassation complaint.

R-159163

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 December 2011 case file II GSK 1378/10 upheld the questioned judgment. The Court agreed with the PPO that Lubella was a different legal entity from the right holder of earlier trade marks that were considered as similar. The Court noted that it should be always borne in mind that the task of a trade mark is to distinguish the goods of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. The trade mark has to fulfill the function of determination of origin. This function is expressed objectively by commodity/goods, to which the sign is assigned, and it provides the consumer an idea about the qualities of a particular product, and subjectively i.e. the trade mark belongs to a given undertaking based on the right of protection that was granted to him or her, and it lets for the identification of the goods with the source that is indicated abstractly or by name. The protected trade mark should prevent from the risk of confusion on the part of consumers, because on the one hand it protects the economic interests of entitled entrepreneur, on the other hand it is aimed at consumers, in order to distinguish the origin of the goods. The SAC also reminded after the VAC that the Polish Patent Office does not examine the way in which the trademark is used on the market, except for its reputation, notoriety or secondary meaning i.e. acquired distinctiveness. The examination of a trade mark application is carried out in abstracto, that is, in isolation from market conditions.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 723/11

December 28th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2007, the Polish Patent Office registered the word-figurative trademark citibank handlowy R-190720, for the American company Citibank, N.A., a National Banking Association. In 2008, Citigroup Inc. applied for the word trade mark CITI HANDLOWY Z-337716.

R-190720

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection, despite the fact that Citibank N.A. is the sole shareholder of the Citigroup Inc., and Citigroup Inc. provided a letter of consent from its parent company. The PPO decided that both signs would mark very similar goods and services and are directed to the same audience. There is also visuall similarity, caused by common elements. The PPO noted that it is not obliged to take into account the letter of consent issued by Citibank, N.A. Citigroup Inc. filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 9 December 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 723/11 dismissed it. The Court held that the PPO correctly examined all evidence and properly decided on the similarity of signs. The VAC noted that that letters of consent may be evidence in proceedings, but they do not bind the PPO. The VAC pointed to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 December 2007 case file II GSK 279/07. The SAC held that a letter of consent cannot be used as ground to register a trade mark since the Republic of Poland did not implement Article 4(5) of the First Council Directive 89/104.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 211/11

October 6th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

SOREMARTEC S.A. requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the trade mark Raffaello Spumante Dolce Sweet Spumante QUALITA SOPERIORE R-182895 registered for Toruńskie Piwnice Win VINPOL Sp. z o.o., currently VINPOL Sp. z o. o.

R-182895

SOREMARTEC claimed that this sign is similar to the renowned series of RAFFAELLO trade marks registered on its behalf, that the application was filed in bad faith, and that this sign is similar to SOREMARTEC’s trade marks to a degree that causes a risk of misleading the public as to the origin of goods. SOREMARTEC noted that it is aware of VINPOL’s word trade mark RAFFAELLO R-87046 applied for registration in 1993 and subsequent word and figurative trade marks that include in their verbal elements the word “Raffaello”. Therefore, the Company did not oppose the coexistence of Raffaello pralines and sparkling wine bearing the label with the word “Raffaello” on the Polish market. However, the disputed trade mark includes the graphic version of RAFFAELLO that confusingly similar to the one that is consistently used by Ferrero for many years on the packaging of Raffaello pralines. The existence of the contested trade mark would be harmful to both the reputation and distinctiveness of its trade marks, as well as it would be unfairly “impersonating” the reputation of its trade marks without the cost of advertising and promotion. To prove the reputation of its trade marks SOREMARTEC submitted a copy of the public poll report entitled “RAFFAELLO Brand Recognition” and a copy of the report “Development of praline market in Poland”, which shows that the brand RAFFAELLO was in the forefront of the most popular brands of sweets in Poland, its advertising was one of the most remembered and associated advertising of pralines, and Raffaello pralines were among the 10 most frequently purchased and consumed pralines within 6 months preceding the date of the polls. SOREMARTEC also presented a tabulation of the total expenditure on advertising and promotion of Raffaello products in Poland, which have been incurred by Ferrero from 2001 to 2005, and a tabular summary of quantitative results of sales of Raffaello pralines for the period from February 2001 to February 2006. These data indicated that SOREMARTEC has continually expanded and refining the Raffaello’s product line incurring increasing financial investments and extensive marketing campaigns and advertising, so the demand for its products continues to grow. Moreover, SOREMARTEC argued that VINPOL applied for two other trade marks, which verbal element is identical to SOREMARTEC’s trade mark, i.e. MON CHERI R-194468 and word-figurative Mon Cheri CHERRY BRANDY & Delicious 18 High Quality R-203339, and this proves conscious and deliberate action designed to use the reputation of SOREMARTEC’s trademarks. In response, VINIPOL argued that the goods produced by SOREMARTEC, i.e., pralines, and wine are not identical or similar, and therefore there is no risk of misleading the public.

R-203339

The PPO invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark Raffaello Spumante Dolce Sweet Spumante QUALITA SOPERIORE R-182895. The PPO ruled that the circumstances, i.e. several years of presence on the Polish market of Raffaello pralines before the filing date of the contested trade mark, a volume of sales and high percentage of recognition of Raffaello trade marks and its distinctive character, what is the result of both the original form of a trade mark, as well as expenditures on promotion and advertising, confirmed the reputation of Raffaello pralines. According to the PPO, the goods such as alcohol and sweets have many features in common, particularly because they are not consumed for nutritional purposes but for pleasure, such goods can be produced by one company, and may also be sold in a set, or eaten together, which may cause the potential audience to associate sparkling wine with Raffaello pralines. The PPO decided that the contested trade mark, because of its form, will attract the attention of consumers who know the early signs and the goods, in connection with which these trade marks are used. As a result, VINPOL would gain unfair advantage that is mostly based on creating the effect of interest in the goods and services marked with this sign, without having to incur any expenditure on promotion of its goods and services. The PPO has also stressed that the fact that earlier registrations of trade marks for wines with the Raffaello element did not authorize VINPOL to create labels of those products in a form, which resemble them to reputable trade marks, and therefore let VINPOL to benefit from the fact that the recipient seeing the wine Raffaello associate them with products offered by SOREMARTEC that enjoys good reputation among buyers. VINPOL filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 July 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 211/11 dismissed it. The Court noted that provisions of the Polish Act on Industrial Property Law does not contain a legal definition of a reputable/renown trade mark, so the Court had to refer to the opinion developed by case law and doctrine. The Court of Justice in its judgment of 14 September 1999 Case C-375/97 Chevy formulated the definition of a renowned trademark for the first time. The doctrine points out that the reputation of a trade mark depends primarily on the quality of the goods bearing it, the financial investment made by the entrepreneur to promote its sign in the media and the period of time required for the customer to establish relationship between a specified quality with goods that bears a sign that represents this high quality (recognition of goods bearing the trade mark on the market). The passage of time needed for the establishment of reputation of the trade mark is different for goods from different industries. The period of time depends on many factors, in particular on the intensity of advertising surrounding the launch of the goods bearing the sign. Furthermore, by creating a reputation of a trade mark, the advertising function of a sign is also strengthen, because such a mark encourages customers to purchase goods bearing it. This function is the result of an advertising of a sign staggered in time, by the use of a mark by an authorized entity and the relationship created in the minds of consumers between a sign with positive associations, particularly with regard to quality, usefulness, of product, the profitability of its acquisitions, and other characteristics relevant to the recipients of goods bearing the trade. Also the domestic case law provides that the reputation of a trade mark is characterized by 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, as it was decided in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 9 May 2008 case file II GSK 506/07, the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 February 2008 case file II GSK 359/07.

The Court ruled that the PPO correctly concluded, based on the evidence presented that SOREMARTEC’s trademarks are reputable, and the sign at issue is similar in such a way that consumers can associate these characters with each other, and the use of this trade mark by VINPOL may bring unfair advantage due to the obvious use of the reputation of the trade marks owned by SOREMARTEC. The evidence showed that Raffaello pralines were present on the Polish market several years before the filing date of the contested trade mark, the sales were rising over the years, the high percentage of recognition of Raffaello, and a significant volume of promotion and advertising, created the image of the brand as a symbol of quality, delicacy and elegance. All this confirms the reputation of Raffaello pralines. At the same time as it was pointed by the Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 3 October 2007, case file I ACa 767/07, there is no requirement of likelihood of confusion in relation to reputed trade mark, only the possibility to associate a sign with a reputed trade mark that was registered earlier, which results that the first sign is able to attract customers through positive images carried by a reputable character. Associations between such trade marks occur when the designation used by the infringer automatically brings in minds of potential customers a reputable character originally used by the owner, even if the recipient is aware of the fact that both entities are completely independent. If these signs are also used to designate similar goods, there is no need to show any additional evidence. Apart whether consumers will confuse this trade mark as to the origin of the goods designated, it will draw attention to goods bearing a renowned trademarks. Such a situation would give unfair advantage resulting only from similarity to the earlier reputed mark, based mainly on the effect of interest that would arouse in the goods covered by the contested mark, without incurring any expenses for promotion of those goods.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 262/11

October 2nd, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office refused to recognize the protection of the FERRERO OPERA IR-0891152 trade mark owned by SOREMARTEC S.A. The PPO decided that there are already registered similar or identical trade marks owned by Ferrero S.p.A.

SOREMARTEC argued that there is no real risk of misleading the public as to the origin of goods bearing signs question, due to the fact that these trade marks are owned by closely related companies, and the goods are produced by all companies according to uniform quality standards. The Company presented documents confirming relationship between the companies, and submitted also a letter of consent.

The PPO agreed that there are regulations on letters of consent provided in the Polish Industrial Property Law. According to this provisions the owner of a lapsed trade mark may agree for a registration of a new trade mark, but the Polish legislator did not foresee similar rules relating to the signs remaining in force. However, and this is not a legal loophole. This rule is clear and there are no doubts. There’s an exception to that rule but it is very limited and it should not be interpreted broadly. As the PPO noted this is a classic example of a positive-negative regulation that is used in the legislation. As a contrario interpretation, Article 133 of the IPL sets two standards: a positive – that permits registration of the trade mark after obtaining the consent of the owner of an earlier mark that has lapsed, and negative – it does not allow for consent letters for the other collision (i.e. with signs of remaining in force, renown, reputed signs, etc.).

Article 132
1. A right of protection shall not be granted for a trade mark in respect of identical or similar goods, if the trade mark is identical or similar to:
(iii) a trade mark earlier registered in the Republic of Poland, whose registration has terminated, provided that an interval between the date of lapse of the right of protection for the trade mark and the date on which a similar trade mark has been applied for by another party, is, subject to Article 133, no longer than two years.

Article 133
The provision of Article 132(1)(iii) shall not apply where the protection has terminated under Article 169(1)(i) or the right holder of the earlier right has given his consent for the later trade mark being granted a right of protection.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 December 2007 case file II GSK 279/07 supported this interpretation. The SAC ruled that the provision of Article 4(5) of the First Council Directive 89/104 has not been implemented into Polish law, and it was futile to rely on the infringement of this provision, because such a consent has not the legal effect under Polish law. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 279/07“. The examination system was adopted for the registration of trade marks in Poland. Letters of consent do not eliminate the risk of consumers’ confusion as to the origin of goods. This fact must therefore be taken into consideration during the examination of applied trade marks. The sign has to distinguish one entrepreneur from another entrepreneurs. The capital group is the association of many entrepreneurs linked to each other in different ways. If the goods are actually marketed by such a group and do not cause the confusion of consumers, the institution of a joint right of protection. The obligatory regulations governing use of trade marks adopted by the undertakings who have jointly applied for the trade mark protection, ensures that the signs will not be misleading at the time of filing the trade mark application, but also during their existance on the market. However, one can not assume in advance that the signs coming from companies that are linked organizationally and financially do not mislead consumers. There always will be a risk of consumers’ confusion. During the application proceedings, it is not possible for the PPO to examine the policy of big companies in order to identify the origin of each product offered. Therefore, if a number of separate legal entities want to use a similar trade mark, they must, in accordance with Polish law, to use the institution of a joint right of protection or simply trade mark licenses. There is no legal justification to treat the origin of signs from companies linked organizationally and financially as a guarantee of the absence of the risk of consumers confusions as to the origin of these goods.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 17 May 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 262/11 overturned the decision of the Polish Patent Office and held it unenforceable. The VAC agreed with the PPO that in principle, the mere letter of consent that was issued by a company that was unrelated organizationally and/or legally with entitled to the trade mark application, is not a basis for registration of a mark identical or similar. However, this document was not the only document on which SOREMARTEC relied to demonstrate the lack of the risk of conumers’ confusion. When examining the collected evidence material the PPO completely ignored the fact that the applicant has a number of trade marks with the word element “Ferrero” including signs from the earlier priority than the opposed trade marks. In addition, the VAC noted that SOREMARTEC owns trade marks containing the “Ferrero” element which were registered by the PPO on the basis of letters of consent.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1104/10

March 17th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

DOMAIN MENADA Sp. z o.o. applied for the right of protection for the word trade mark “TCHERGA – ŻYJ KOLOROWO” for goods in Class 33 such as alcoholic beverages (except beers). The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection because it found similarity with the earlier trade mark TCHERGA IR-0829406 owned by Droujestvo S Ogranitchena Otgovornnost BELVEDERE Capital Management.

IR-0829406

DOMAIN MENADA pointed out that it is a controlled company and the Bulgarian entrepreneur is the controlling one, where both enterprises form a homogeneous capital group and remain inseparable commercial contacts and in the interest of both parties is that DOMAIN MENADA is granted the right of protection for a trademark in question and a letter of consent signed by the Bulgarian company was a proof of such an approach. DOMAIN MENADA argued that the same evidence was brought in case of the “TCHERGA CRAZY FOR COLOUR” trade mark R-196255, in which the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection.

The PPO noted that all relationships between entrepreneurs, can only be the basis for granting a license to use the trade mark. The provisions allowing for a letter of consent in relation to the trade mark rights remaining in force are not provided in Polish law. The Polish Industrial Property law introduced regulations on a letter of consent in a limited extent in the case of applying for the right of protection for a trade mark in respect of identical or similar goods, if the trade mark is identical or similar to a trade mark earlier registered in the Republic of Poland, whose registration has terminated. The right holder of the earlier right may give his/her consent for the later trade mark being granted a right of protection. The PPO noted that the TCHERGA CRAZY FOR COLOUR R-196255 was registered before the Supreme Administrative Court rendered a judgment case file II GSK 279/07. The SAC held that a letter of consent cannot be used as ground to register a trade mark since Poland did not implement Article 4(5) of the First Council Directive 89/104. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 279/07“. Domain Menada filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 January 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1104/10 dismissed it and ruled that capital or organizational or personal links between enterprises cannot justify and serve as the sole reason for granting the right of protection for a trademark.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 711/10

September 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark PRODUCT OF ITALY FILIPETTI Casa Fondata nel 1922 VERMOUTH EXTRA DRY Ricetta Originale Filipetti Prodotto seguendo la tradizionale ricetta della Casa Filipetti Z-298152 that was applied for by Domain Menada Sp. z o.o. for goods in Class 33. The PPO decided that this trade mark is similar to the word trade marks FILIPETTI R-101614 and R-140718 owned by Belvedere S.A. Domain Menada argued that it is a part of the Belvedere Group, and provided a letter of consent. The Company filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 711/10 dismissed it. The Court held that in any case, the mere existence of links (relationships) between entrepreneurs belonging to the same capital group cannot be regarded as a guarantee of quality of product bearing the disputed trade mark.

Z-298152

It should be noted that the capital group is a specific form of business, where corporate governance is exercised at several levels – both across the group and in individual companies. The mere membership in a capital group cannot be used as an argument that the signs from affiliated companies will not mislead consumers. Domain Menada filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 December 2011 case file II GSK 1245/10 dismissed it. The SAC held that the letter of consent was not binding and the PPO examined its effects in different aspects, based on gathered evidence, and it found that the letter of consent is not an exemption to grounds for refusing trade mark protection

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 710/10

August 30th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 25 July 2005, DOMAIN MENADA Sp. z o.o. from Warsaw applied for the right of protection for FILIPETTI MONTENERO SPUMANTE DEMI SEC dalla tradizione italiana trade mark in class 33. The Polish Patent Office informed DOMAIN MENADA that there exist earlier trade marks owned by Belvedere S.A. and refused to grant the right of protection for the applied sign. DOMAIN MENADA filed a complaint in which the company argued that it is a member of Belvedere Group and provided a proper letter of consent.

Z-298140

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 710/10 held that in any case, the mere existence of links (relationships) between entities belonging to the same capital group cannot be regarded as a guarantee of quality of product bearing the disputed trademark. It should be noted that the capital group is a specific form of business, where corporate governance is exercised at several levels – both across the group and in individual companies. The mere membership in a capital group cannot be used as an argument that the signs from affiliated companies will not mislead consumers.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 950/08

August 12th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 2 September 1998, the Polish Patent Office has granted the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 for the Polish company “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA Jadwiga i Piotr Szlegiel Spólka Jawna from Gorzów Wielkopolski for goods in class 25. On 2005, Scotch & Soda B.V. from Netherlands filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 trade mark based on article 8(i) and 8(ii) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 1985, published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 1985 No. 5, item 15, with later amendments:

A trade mark 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 was also based on provisions of article 6septies of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The S&S company argued that for over twenty years it exports clothing goods marked with the Scotch & Soda trade mark to many countries in the world through local distributors. One of them was a Polish businessman, who in 1994 became the sole importer and distributor of Scotch & Soda products in Poland. According to S&S his Polish partner has abused its trust by obtaining the trade mark protection for Scotch & Soda trade mark for himself and in this way blocking access to the Polish market for S&S. In 2002, the S&S company has signed with Piotr Szlegiel a document called “cession of rights from the registration of the mark.” However, at the date of the signature of this document, the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 already belonged to “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA. In addition the S&S company received a financial request from the Polish entrepreneur.

“SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA claimed that it was an equal partner, rather than the official importer and sole distributor of the S&S company’s goods and it was not bound by the agency or representative contracts. The legal predecessor of “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA had full autonomy inter alia, he was allowed to apply for the registration of the disputed mark on the territory of the Republic of Polish. This fact was known to S&S. Polish company has claimed that S&S failed to obtain the trade mark protection for SCOTCH & SODA sign based on the international registration under the Madrid Agreement and it did not take any action to change this situation. After the completion of courts’ proceedings the S&S company has offered “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA a royalty-free (free of charge) license to use the disputed trade mark for shoes throughout Europe in return for the transfer of the right of protection. These negotiations have not yielded results.

“SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA was astonished by the fact that the S&S company “challenged” the right of protection for word-figurative trade mark SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 for the first time after it has received a cease and desist letter (a request for voluntary fulfilment of plaintiff’s demand is a prerequsite to file a complaint in a civil suit against trade mark infringer) on October 2003.

“SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA requested the Polish Patent Office to dismiss a request for invalidation of the right of protection for SCOTCH & SODA R-100588. The Polish company called the circumstances with regard to litigation that ended in a judgment issued by the Regional Court in Zielona Gora (case act signature V GC 522/03). the Regional Court dmissed a suit brought by S&S company based on article 161 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo wlasnosci przemyslowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2001 No 49, pos. 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, pos. 1117, with later amendments.

1. To the extent as follows from an international agreement, where a trademark has been applied for protection by and on behalf of, or the right of protection has been granted for, an agent or a representative of the person enjoying the exclusive right to use that trademark in another country, that person may, if the agent or representative acted without that person’s consent, demand that the protection granting proceeding be discontinued or the right of protection revoked. He may also demand that the right of protection be granted on his behalf, or the right already granted transferred to him.

2. The right may not be demanded to be revoked or transferred, where the entitled person referred to in paragraph (1) has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of the registered trademark while being aware of such use.

However, the PPO did not agree with “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA arguments and it has invalidated of the right of protection for SCOTCH & SODA R-100588 trade mark in its decision of 2007. In the PPO’s assessment the legal predecessor of “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA has been acting in bad faith while applied for the protection rights to the disputed sign. According to the Polish case-law and doctrinal opinions that were cited by the PPO, the applicant for trade mark registration is acting in bad faith when he/she knows or should know that such action violates third parties’ rights. Acting in bad faith is also one who is relying on a right or legal relationship and knows that this right or a legal relationship does not exist, or he or she does not know, but the lack of knowledge can not be regarded as the justified circumstances. The PPO has also noted that in the legal commentaries on Polish trade mark law two competing views on bad faith are taken into account. First, bad faith occurs when a person who owns a disputed trade mark registration had to know or should know that the legal conditions to acquire this right were not met. In such case, the owner is always acting in bad faith when a mark has been registered contrary to the applicable provisions of the law or expressly recognized principle of social coexistence (see: article 8(i) of the TMA). By contrast, in the case of trade mark registration that was made despite the existence of an earlier priority right, an owner of such righ can be entitled as acting in good faith only if he or she was deceived (and it can be justified) with regard the extent of protection resulting from the trade mark right with an earlier priority. If the registration has been aquired by a person for a purpose other than to use a trade mark (for example, to force financial concessions from other entrepreneurs, to obtain control over imports, to force reaching of a license agreement) in this case, bad faith is understood as a qualified form of a breach of social coexistence rules. Such opinion was issued by R. Skubisz, Prawo znaków towarowych. Komentarz (in English: Trade mark law. Commentary), Warszawa 1997, p. 224. However, in turn, dr Elzbieta Wojcieszko-Gluszko thinks that there is no reason to modify the general concept of good and bad faith for the needs of the IPL regulations. According to dr Wojcieszko-Gluszko a valuable guidance for the interpretation with regard to bad/good faith may be a reference to the legal definition of a filing made in bad faith that is provided in the Benelux Trademark Law.

The PPO also cited arguments provided in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 August 2002, case file II SA 3879/01 and interpretation included in the judgment of 17 July 2003, case file II SA 1165/02 that was issued on the basis of article 8(i) of the TMA and in which the Court concluded that the issue of an assessment of the contradiction of a trade mark application with rules of social coexistence does not refer to trade mark only and itself, but also takes into account the contradiction with the principles of actions made by an applicant and their intended effect. In courts’ opinion the extending interpretation of the rules of social coexistence is justified if one notices that this general clause/rule has displaced such clauses and rules as the principles of good manners, fair trading and good faith. The PPO has considered as totally unfounded all arguments that the consent for a trade mark registration belonging to a partner was justified due to a lack of prohibition in the relevant articles of association, or in other agreements concluded between the parties. The concept of an agent or a representative in this case should be interpreted according to the Polish law. Selling products on the Polish market by the involved people was in such a role. “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA brought a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, which, in a jugment of 29 May 2008, case file VI Sa/Wa 402/08 dismissed the complaint. “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA brought a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw. The cassation complaint was dismissed in judgment of 2 July 2009, case file II GSK 950/08.

The SAC emphasized the fact that for the assessment of compliance of a registration of a mark with the principles of social coexistence (as referred to in article 8(i) of the TMA) the most authoritative is the moment of filing an application for trade mark registration of in the Patent Office, which in this case took place in March 1995. It could not be left imperceptible by the Courts that even “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA claimed that the disputed mark was not its property at the date of filing for registration in the Patent Office (sic!). Moreover, the legal predecessor of “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA did not inform S&S about his registration neither got a permission for such action. If it were otherwise, what is clear, the S&S company would not file for the recognition on the territory of the Republic of Poland of the protection for its international trademark.

As a distributor of the goods of an entrepreneur located abroad who was not leading any commercial activities in its own name on the Polish territory, the legal predecessor of “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA probably knew, or in any circumstance must have known that the application in its own name for registration of a trademark belonging to a foreign business violates provisions of article 6 septies of the Paris Convention. But not only. “SCOTCH & SODA” POLSKA predecessor’s behavior violated the rules of social coexistence, within the meaning of article 8(1) of the TMA. His actions in fact were directed at the appropriation of trade mark property rights owned by the S&S company, without obtaining any consent, in order to achieve unjustified benefits. Such behavior clearly violates the principles of social coexistence as it was decided by the Polish Patent Office and the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 279/07

January 8th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Company Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH tried to register the word trade mark AZOR in Class 3 in Poland, but the same mark was already registered and had been in force since 1995. Its owner – ORO Produkte Marketing International GmbH – reached an agreement with Plus regarding its registration. However, the Polish Patent Office rejected Plus’ trade mark application. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its jugment of 14 March 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 2314/06 dismissed a complaint brought by Plus. The Court uphold the PPO’s decision and ruled that the Polish Act on Industrial Property Law provides no exceptions for registration of a mark that is identical to an earlier trade mark, and the goods or services for which the trade mark is applied for are identical.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 December 2007 case file II GSK 279/07, has confirmed the lower Court’s judgment and ruled that a letter of consent cannot be used as ground to register such trade mark since the Republic of Poland did not implement Article 4(5) of the First Council Directive 89/104. This article is one of the provisions of Community law which leaves the freedom of Member States regarding the implementation of their national law. It has no direct effect for individuals. This provision has been implemented into the Polish Industrial Property Law, only with regard to trade marks for which protection has lapsed.