Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: non-use

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1203/11

April 24th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

VINEX PRESLAV from Bulgaria requested the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection for the trade mark MADARA R-97447 owned by Dimyat Polska Sp. z o.o. Earlier, VINEX PRESLAV applied to the PPO to recognise on the territory of the Republic of Poland of the protection for its international trade mark MADARA IR-0929344. In the preliminary refusal sent to the WIPO, the PPO informed that the trade mark MADARA R-97447 is an obstacle to recognise the protection of the trade mark MADARA IR-0929344 on the Polish territory. VINEX argued that the disputed sign has never been used in Poland in relation to the goods covered by the registration, namely goods from Class 33 such as beverages, wine, spirits, brandies and cognacs. Dimyat claimed that it has acquired the right of protection in 1998, but because of “unexplained delay”, the entry in the register of trade marks was made in 2002. The company had to find a licensee, and the PPO by its decision of March 2005, has made an entry of the licensee into the register. However, under the decision of April 2006, the licensee has been removed from the register. The “confusion” around the entry of a licensee undermined Dimyat’s belief and faith whether the company will be able to exercise that right at all. The PPO decided on the lapse of the right of protection.

IR-0929344

Dimyat Polska filed a complaint against this decision. The company argued that there existed serious reasons of non-use. Dimyat became a legal successor of the trade mark MADARA R-97447, however this right was obtained after several years of court battles which finally ended in 2002, and the PPO was aware of this legal disputes. Dimyat claimed that the objective circumstances relating to the acquisition of the trade mark (the acquisition of a company in liquidation), objective circumstances preventing the transfer of its right of protection (the court proceedings in order to recognize the acquisition of a trade agreement to be effective), the objective circumstances relating to the license (all the PPO actions that were associated with the deletion of the license agreement and the appeals) significantly prevented Dimyat from the use of the disputed trade mark.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 October 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1203/11 reversed the contested decision, ruled it unenforceable, and returned the case to the PPO for reconsideration. The Court held that it is the responsibility of the PPO, to examine the request for the lapse of a trade mark in the light of the existence of valid and serious reasons of non-use, if such an argument is raised by the owner. The Court noted that the Polish Industrial Property Law uses the term “serious reasons” but does not provide explanation of its characteristics, or even a list of examples. The case-law established that these circumstances are all the events and situations, which exclude allegations of blameworthy conduct of the holder of the trade mark registration. These events include primarily those that bear the characteristics of force majeure or other external circumstances impossible to foresee and to prevent them, as well as factual and legal obstacles that are independent from the will of the owner.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 839/10

January 17th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Nufarm Australia Limited, the owner of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY R-164428 registered for goods in Class 5, requested the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection for DUAL IR-0534713 owned by Syngenta Participations AG. Earlier before, Syngenta opposed the registratin of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY R-164428.

Syngenta requested the PPO to dismiss the request. The Company provided evidence of use of the trade mark DUAL IR-0534713. There were six copies of VAT invoices from the period from 2002 to 2006, of sale of goods bearing the sign “DUAL GOLD 960 EC”, and two newspaper articles concerning this product and the material safety data sheets of “DUAL GOLD 960 EC of August 2005.

The Polish Patent Office decided on the lapse of the right of protection for DUAL IR-0534713 and dismissed the opposition against the registration of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY R-164428. Syngenta filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 March 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1807/09 dismissed it. Syngenta filed a cassation compliant.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 October 2011 case file II GSK 839/10 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. The SAC ruled that the cassation complaint can be based on the following grounds: a) the violation of substantive law by its erroneous interpretation or misuse, or the violation of proceedings rules, if it could affect the outcome of the case. The specific provisions of substantive law or procedural law, which were violated the court of first instance, should be indicated. Furthermore, it should be precisely explained What was the misapplication or misinterpretation – in relation to substantive law, or it should be demonstrated what was the significant impact of the violation of procedural law to decide the case by the court of first instance – in relation to the rules of proceedings. The Supreme Administrative Court cannot change or precise cassation complaints and their grounds, or otherwise correct them, due to limitations resulting from the mentioned rules. If the cassation complaint alleges violation of both substantive law and proceedings, as it was in the present case, the Supreme Administrative Court recognizes the allegation of violation of proceedings, in the first place.

The SAC decided the PPO has erred in its findings because it considered that the evidence submitted on, was from the years 2002-2006, while there was also an invoice from March 2007 on the case file, which was of the relevance to the case. It was a sales invoice of the preparation DUAL GOLD 960 EC 12 XI and DUAL GOLD 960 EC 4X 5 L. Surprisingly, the Supreme Administrative Court acknowledged, that the case facts showed that the trade mark DUAL GOLD lapsed on June 2006, so as a trade mark it ceased to exist on the market from that date (it was not registered). Since the trade mark DUAL GOLD ceased to exist in legal transactions after June 2006, the Polish Patent Office should examine whether this sign could be used in this situation, as indicated on the invoice of March 2007, or perhaps the invoice indicated the use of any other trade mark, for example, the trade mark DUAL, and therefore the Article 170 (1) of the IPL should be applied in this case.

Article 170
1. Subject to paragraph (2), the Patent Office shall dismiss a request for declaring the right of protection lapsed in the case referred to in Article 169(1)(i), if before the submission of the request genuine use of the mark has started or has been resumed.

2. Start or resumption of the use of the trademark after the expiration of an uninterrupted period of five successive years of non-use and within a period of three months preceding the submission of the request for declaring the right of protection lapsed, shall be disregarded, if preparations for the start or resumption of the use have been undertaken immediately after the right holder became aware of possible submission of such request.

3. Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply accordingly in the cases referred to in Article 169(7).

4. Loss of a right to use a sign or a symbol, referred to in Article 131(2) incorporated in a trademark shall not constitute a ground for non-making a decision declaring the right of protection for that trademark lapsed, if that sign or symbol ceased to be used in the trademark before a request for the declaration of the right of protection lapsed has been submitted.

In light of this evidence, which were the facts of this case, where a detailed analysis could affect the outcome of the case, it was premature by the court of first instance to rule and to say that, in this case that the genuine use of the mark has not started or has not been resumed, and PPO in this case did not erred in law, because it has analyzed all the evidence gathered. Considering other procedural allegations, the SAC held that administrative courts are not required in justification of its judgments to refer to each decision of Polish or European courts, that were cited by the author of a complaint. Such obligation can not be inferred from any provision of the Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts. However, the administrative court should refer to these judgments, of which the applicant derives important arguments for the assessment of the case. In this case, the Court of first instance did not meet this requirement.

The SAC noted that the doctrine of law and case-law indicate that the trade mark proprietor may use its sign in an altered form in connection to the form of a sign that was registered. This alteration however, cannot apply to elements that decide on the distinctiveness of the sign, or may not lead to changes in represented form as a distinctive whole. See the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 May 2006 case file II GSK 70/06. The SAC confirmed the high degree of freedom to dispose of a trademark by its proprietor, and cited the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 June 2008 case file II GSK 251/08. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 251/08“. The SAC found that the VAC has not sufficiently analyzed of all substantive rules in the context of this case. However, both situation where the violation of substantive law may happen, i.e., violation of substantive law by its incorrect interpretations or inappropriate use, refer only to cases where the facts of the case were established in no uncertain terms. Otherwise, the alleged breach of substantive law is at least premature. This situation took place in this case, because the author of the complainant cassation alleged in the first place the violation of the proceedings by the VAC. The violation of proceedings was based on the refusal by the court of first instance to repeal the decision issued by the Polish Patent Office, in a situation when that PPO did not adequately explain the facts of the case and did not examine in a comprehensive manner the whole of the evidence.

Trade mark law, case IV CSK 393/10

October 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Hochland Reich Summer & Co. KG owns a three-dimensional trade mark IR-736770 in Poland, and Hochland AG is the owner of the right in registration of an industrial design Rp-5337. The 3D trade mark is not used in the clear registered form, but is marketed as a product package of ALMETTE cheese, with additional verbal and figurative elements. Both Hochland AG and Hochland Reich, Summer & Co. KG, together with Hochland Polska sued the Polish dairy cooperatives in Piątnica, because it has used the packaging for cheese, on which a graphic of a wooden pail that was similar to Hochland’s trade mark and design, was placed.

IR-736770

The District Court in Białystok in its judgment of 13 October 2009 case file VII GC 49/07 dismissed the suit and refused to recognize the trade mark as a reputed one. However, the Court agreed with the opinion issued by the expert witness that a clean pail, without any identifiers, stands out positively in comparison to other packagings, and by its distinctive shape is strongly associated with the Almette brand. The District Court agreed with Piątnica that this trade mark was not used in trade in its registered form, and that Hochland did not prove that the use of cup-like pail brings Piątnica unfair advantage or is detrimental to the distinctive character of Hochland’s trade mark, which is a prerequisite to the protection of reputed/renown trade marks. The Appellate Court in Białystok in its judgment of 26 February 2010 upheld these findings except the costs and the issue of trade mark use. Hochland filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Court in its judgdment of 10 February 2011 case IV CSK 393/10 found that the Appellate Court decided that the expert’s opinion had no probative value because of the unrepresentative range of research on which it was based, and as a result, the Court found that Hochland failed to prove that its trade mark is a distinctive sign, with reputation. The Appellate Court spoke on the inadequacies of the expert opinion only in the justification of the judgment, and not during the proceedings, which precluded Hochland from filing proper evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that renowned trade marks enjoy special protection – wider than the other trade marks, i.e., even if there is less similarity between trade marks or the goods. In the case of reputed signs, the risk of confusion or the likelihood of confusion is not required. The association with the earlier renowned sign is a sufficient condition. The Court noted that the Polish Industrial Property Law does not provide any definition of reputable trade mark, but only points to the specific conditions of protection. The Supreme Court emphasized that the definitions provided in the legal commentaries, as well as in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and Polish courts, differ in this respect. The Court noted that a reputable trade mark is recognized by a significant part of relevant public. The Polish legal commentators argue that such a sign must be known at least by 25 percent of relevant public, and if the percentage exceeded 50 percent, the reputation is always proved. The Supreme Court also noted that the protection of a reputable trade mark does not require the owner to prove that the use of a similar trade mark has brought its user unfair advantage or was detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the earlier mark. A mere possibility of obtaining unfair advantage by the infringer or the very possibility of harmful effects to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark, is a sufficient condition. Therefore, these conditions have normative and hypothetical nature. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court erred in the examination of the opinion of another expert witness, who showed that the use of the image of a wooden pail on the packaging of cheese, in the assessment of 69% of consumers may affect their decision on the purchase of goods, and therefore it could potentially influence the purchase of the goods produced by the defendant in its packagings. This circumstance was important for assessing whether the use by the defendant of Hochland’s trade mark could bring Piątnica unfair advantage at the expense of the owner of the trade mark, who first used the sign and incurred substantial costs for its promotions within a few years.

The Appeallate Court in Białystok in its judgment of 7 July 2011 case file I ACa 305/11 was bound by the decision issued by the Supreme Court. The Court pointed out that according to the opinion of Grzegorz Urbanek, who was appointed as an expert witness, the wooden pail is associated to the Almette brand in the perception of most respondents. Both the opinion and attached results showed that even a same wooden pail without and with identifiers has the same effect, i.e. the half of the respondents, because of the packaging, was willing to buy the Almette cheese, and not other cheese of the same type but in the same packagings. Therefore, the Appellate Court prohibited Piątnica to use in the course of trade of a figurative sign representing a wooden pail with a handle, on the packaging of its cheese products. Piatnica still uses the packaging for its cheese, which is similar to a wooden pail. The dairy cooperatives replaced the image from the packaging with the milk-churn with pouring milk.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 269/10

August 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polish company Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcji Lodów “KORAL” Józef Koral Spółka jawna from Limanowa, the owner of the word trade mark RED BLUE Z-277694 requested the Polish Patent Office to decide on the invalidation of the right of protection for the word trade mark RED BULL IR-708694 in part for goods in Class 30. KORAL claimed inter alia that the registration of the questioned trade mark was made in violation of Article 6(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, becasue goods in Class 30 are not subject to the activities of the Red Bull GmbH.

6.
(1) A trademark shall be registrable on behalf of a specific enterprise, but only in respect of goods falling within its field of economic activity.

On 15 December 2008, Red Bull informed the PPO that with effect from 5 December 2008, the Company renounced the protection of the questioned trade mark for goods in class 30 on the Polish territory. The PPO dismissed the request and noted that Red Bull GmbH is a limited liability company under the Austrian law. According to the registry of commercial activity, the company uses the Red Bull brand in the course of trade. In the opinion of the PPO, the Austrian law does not require further specification of the scope of the commercial activity of a company. The PPO has indicated that the minimum condition for which the entrepreneur must meet while applying for a trade mark in order to be grated the exclusive rights to that sign, is the intent of use. Such intent may be interpreted from the list of goods and services covered in the application and registration of the trade mark. KORAL filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 26 October 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1263/09 dismissed the complaint and KORAL filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 April 2011 case file II GSK 269/10 dismissed the cassation. The SAC ruled that the Polish legislature adopted the law which implies that a trade mark may be registered if it’s related to the business activity of an entrepreneur and, therefore, that this is not property in itself, which can belong to anyone, but it is an intangible component of the company/enterprise, that serves to distinguis the goods or services from other goods and services of the same kind of other companies. The second of those conditions preclude the possibility of marking other goods than the goods covered by the activities of a company. There is no doubt that the product (or service) that is actually offered in the market by the company, is a commodity, which is the subject of its business. However, a trade mark can (and should) also be used for goods that are not currently offered. Therefore, some problems of interpretation arise in the case of these goods (and services) that can be marketed by the company in the future. The SAC noted that the case law and legal doctrine adopted the view, that commodities which are the subject of a business activity will also be goods or services, what a company intends to introduce to the market in the future. Thus, the need arose to determine the criteria that would allow for the identification of the types of goods that are covered at the time of filing of a trade mark application (and consequently by the registration) by the intention of marking them in the future by that trade mark. Such intention is disclosed by identifying of the company activities in the appropriate register, because it is a public declaration of the entrepreneur on which fields of economic activities it intends to participate, or what kind of goods or services it will be offering on the market.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 259/10

April 7th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Mariusz Lech Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Uslugowe LECH-POL from Lask requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the word trade mark “lech wódka” R-145285 registered for Fabryka Wódek POLMOS ŁAŃCUT S.A. for goods in class 33 such as alcoholic beverages: vodka. Mariusz Lech argued that the questioned trade mark is confusingly similar to his word-figurative trade mark LECH-POL R-132854 and the word trade mark “mariusz lech” R-113305, both registered for good in class 33 such as alcoholic beverages.

The PPO dismissed the request and noted that Mr Lech’s trade mark were not genuinely used for all goods. In 2007 the PPO decided on the lapse of the protection rights for both trade marks in all goods except wines, this cases went through all instances. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 708/08“. Therefore, the compared goods are different due to existing specialization in the alcohol industry and the awareness of that specialization among potential customers is also important, because the average buyer is aware that the vodka manufacturer does not produce wine, and vice versa. These trade marks may exist on the market without collision. Mariusz Lech filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 October 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1050/09. LECH-POL decided to file a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 February 2011 case file II GSK 259/10 dismissed it. The SAC ruled that the conditions of production of wines and vodka are different. The packagings and sealing of such goods differs and there are different conditions of sale of such products. Vodka in not sold in the wineries, and in case when both types of goods are in a shop, (usually displayed on different shelves in malls), their location is clearly separable. The development of shopping centers and various self-service shops of retail chains, makes the criterion of sales conditions less important when it is used for assessing the similarity of the goods. The Court noted that vodka and wine, because of varying alcohol content, must be treated as different types of alcoholic beverages, which is also reflected in the provisions the Polish Act on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism of 26 October 1982 and the permits that are granted under this Act for trade and service of alcoholic beverages are issued separately for each kind of beverage from a separate pool of permissions. The Court also ruled that the incidental possibility that the producer of wines and spirits is the same entity does not lead to the conclusion that these beverages are of one type.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 457/08

February 21st, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the registration of the industrial design “bottle with cap” Rp-2543 owned by Zakład Produkcj Opakowań Rosiński i S-ka sp.j. The request for invalidation was filed by Unilever, which claimed that the design infringes on its 3D trade mark R-134678. This 3D trade mark has the form of a bottle for liquids and it was registered on 20 March 2002 (with a priority of 29 January 1999) for goods in Classes 03 and 05 such as detergents, preparations and substances all for laundry use, fabric conditioning preparations, bleaching preparations, cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations, soaps, deodorants for personal use, hand washes disinfectants, sanitary preparations, preparations for destroying vermin, insects and noxious animals, fungicides, germicides, bactericides, parasiticides, algicides, insecticides, weedkillers, deodorants, other than for personal use, air freshening preparations, insect repellents. The decision of the PPO was uphold by the Voivodeship Administrative Court. Rosiński filed a cassation complaint and the Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the Polish company and returned this case for reconsideration. The PPO will again decide on the invalidation of the industrial design in question.

Rp-2543

Meanwhile, during the battle over the industrial design, Rosiński requested the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection to 3D trade mark R-134678.

Rosinski claimed that the 3D mark in question must be treated, as the so-called weak sign. A bottle as such, is not, remarkably original shape significantly different from other packaging that are available on the Polish market for liquid toilet cleaners. Rosinski emphasized that the registered form of a trade mark significantly differs from the form that is actually used. Only the label, take than 50% of the bottle, and it is insignificant part of a packaging, that attracts attention of the buyer. Rosinski also noted that Unilever cannot argue and prove that the use of the mark in the form without additional elements is genuine use if the actually used a form of a registered trade mark (with labels) was subject to a separate registration (word-figurative trade mark Domestos SPRING FRESH THICK DISINFECTING CLEANER KILLS ALL KNOWN GERMS R-155952). Rosiński added that while the request does not seek to challenge the general idea of registrability of 3 dimensional trade marks such as the shapes of packages. However, such registration has its consequences. While, Unilever was allowed to register its bottle, and as a rule all the other manufacturers are allowed to do, these are weak signs, because such registration does not break the idea of a bottle for fluids.

R-134678

Unilever argued that Rosiński has no legal interest (locus standi) in requesting the lapse and presented a series of evidence on the genuine use of its 3D trade mark. The evidence included market research of 2009 on the knowledge of the DOMESTOS bottle shape amongst consumers, annual (1999-2000) spendings on television advertising of Domestos, black and white and color prints of television commercials, CD with TV ads recorded on it, color printings of press advertisements, series of judgments issued by French and German courts that were consistent with Unilever’s arguments.

R-155952

The Adjudicative Board of the PPO composed of five members (usually the board decides a case in a panel composed of the chairman and two members of a board, but five members’ board may be appointed for hearing complicated cases) in its decision of 20 December 2010 case file Sp. 457/08 ruled on the lapse of the right or protection because of non-use in the form in which the trade mark has been registered. The PPO agreed that Rosiński presented clear evidences on locus standi. All legal actions initiated by Unilever were directed against Rosiński’s freedom of business activity and this justified the request to the PPO to decide on the lapse. The PPO held that all submitted materials do not themselves constitute evidence of the genuine use of a bottle with a red cap without a label. Unilever did not show the place and time, extent and nature of use of its trade mark based on specific and objective evidence. The PPO noted that Unilever is the holder of other trade marks that have the same shape, especially word-figurative trade mark R-155952 and R-107207, IR-787372 and IR-798868 and according to the case-law, if there is a registered form of the trade mark with a label and it is genuinely used, then one cannot argue about the genuine use of another registered trade mark that lacks these additional elements. The PPO also ruled that evidence in the form of private public opinion research was dated on 2005 and did not constitute direct evidence of the genuine use of a green bottle with red cap but rather it tried to prove the renown of another trade mark with a label. Also, according to the case-law of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court, the reputation of a trade mark does not preclude the issuance of a decision on the lapse of this trade mark. The PPO ruled that frames from the TV ads and print ads were poor quality and were not in any way dated, It was also not proven whether the TV ads were aired in Poland. There has not also been proved that these ads were even broadcasted. As regards the print ads there were not provided titles of newspapers that the ads appeared nor numbers or dates of editions, and often other bottles of Domestos product appeared in these materials. Judgments of foreign courts that were submitted in this case are not very important considering that the law under which they were issued is not valid and binging in the Republic of Poland and each case before the PPO is examined individually based on specific facts of the particular situation. Also it was difficult for the PPO to consider these decisions to be persuasive, becasue the 3D sign must retain its individual character and it needs to designate the origin of goods and in this case Unilever had other trade marks of the same shape.

Therefore, in the opinion of the Polish Patent Office, Unilever has not produced evidence of the genuine use of the 3D trade mark R-134678 on the Polish territory during an uninterrupted period of five years after the date of the decision to grant a right of protection. This decision is not final yet. A complaint may be filed to the administrative court. HT goes to Grzegorz Pacek.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1088/09

February 19th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polish company Śnieżka Invest sp. z o. o. from Świebodzice requested the Polish Patent Office to decided on the lapse of the right of protection for the trademark GOPLANA MICHAŁKI R-139668 owned by Jutrzenka S.A. Śnieżka claimed that the questioned trade was not genuinely used in the period of five successive years after a decision on the grant of a right of protection has been taken. Śnieżka also owns michałki R-72668 trade mark and the company from Świebodzice argued that the market existence of GOPLANA MICHAŁKI sign would interfere its business.

Jutrzenka argued that there existed very serious reasons of non-use – the pending administrative proceedings for invalidation of its trade mark. Jutrzenka claimed that the use of the mark in the course of those proceedings would be irrational and it would expose the company to any future claims of Śnieżka. The PPO in its decision of 1 July 2008 no. Sp. 398/07 held that GOPLANA MICHAŁKI trade mark has lapsed. Jutrzenka filed a complaint. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 June 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 81/09 dismissed it. Jutrzenka filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 December 2010 case file II GSK 1088/09 dismissed the complaint and ruled that the case for invalidation of the trade mark registration does not qualify as an important reason for non-use thereof. The serious reasons should be factual and/or legal obstacles. These may be external events of force majeure nature that are impossible to predict and prevent. All circumstances relating to ordinary business risks, which concerns the current operations of each business cannot be deemes as such obstacles. A legal obstacle,preventing the use of a trade mark may be, for example, an individual administrative act prohibiting the use of the mark.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1033/09

January 19th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

EMO-FARM Spółka z o.o., the owner of “A sio !” R-173579 trade mark filed the opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to SI R-184885 trade mark applied for by Przedsiębiorstwo Farmaceutyczne ZIOŁOLEK sp. z o.o. The dispute between these two companies concerned inter alia the issue of trade mark use.The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in a judgment of 9 October 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1033/09 provided the interpretation of adequate provisions 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.

The Court ruled that under the conditions set in the IPL, the trade mark use occurs when it is real, which means that the sign is used for goods and it is used in business transactions in a manner that enables the creation and persistence of the association between the sign and the product, it is unambiguous, which means as the trade mark use, at least in its primary function, i.e., to distinguish goods of the entitled person on the basis of their origin and it is used according to specialization. These abovementioned conditions must be met together, irrespectively of the form of the trade mark use. Their sum is beyond the pale of article 154 of the IPL which contains only a list of examples of trade mark use:

The use of a trademark shall, in particular, consist of:
(i) affixing the trademark to the goods covered by the right of protection or to the packaging thereof, offering and putting the goods on the market, importing or exporting thereof, or their storing for the purpose of offering and putting on the market, as well as offering or providing services under that trademark,
(ii) using the trademark on business documents handled in putting the goods on the market or in rendering services,
(iii) using the trademark in advertising.

This judgment is not yet final. The parties may file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 708/08

June 26th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On June 2007, the Polish Patent Office issued a decision in which it has invalidated the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark Lech-Pol R-132854 that was registered with the priority date of 1998 for goods in Class 33 and owned by Mariusz Lech Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Uslugowe LECH-POL from Lask. The right of protection was invalidated in part for alcoholic beverages except for wine. The request was filed by the Polish company Fabryka Wódek POLMOS LAŃCUT S.A. from Lańcut. The company from Lańcut proved that it had a legitimate interest to have standing in proceedings before the Polish Patent Office, based on the fact that on May 2005 Mariusz Lech filed before the PPO a request to invalidate the right of protection for the trade mark lech wódka R-145285.

According to Polmos Lancut’s arguments, Mariusz Lech used the disputed trade mark only for products such as strong fruit wines. He was not imposing this sign on all other alcoholic beverages in Class 33. Mariusz Lech argued that, since mid-2001, he began efforts to start the production of vodka under the disputed trade mark. As a potential market for these articles he considered the teritory of Ukraine and the Republic of Poland. With this end in view, a design of bottles bearing these trade marks and labels were made. There were also discussions on the distribution of alcohol in Ukraine. However, with regard to the obstacles, the plan was not realized.

The PPO ruled that simply taking the preparatory steps which had no connection with a valid reason that could prevent the use of a trade mark, does not constitute the grounds for dismissal of a request for invalidation of the right of protection.

Mariusz Lech filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 5 February 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 2019/07 dismissed it. Mariusz Lech filed a cassation compalint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 April 2009 case file II GSK 708/08 dismissed it.

See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1042/08” with regard to issues of non-use and genuine use.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1042/08

April 3rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On July 2003 the French company Bongrain S.A. from Viroflay asked the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection for APETITO IR-615850 trade mark. The Polish Patent Office must consider whether there has been a lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark at the request of any party having a legitimate interest. The French company claimed its interest based on trade mark application to register the word trade mark APETITO Z-204328.

The request was based on articles 169(1)(i) 169(2) and 169(6) 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.

1. The right of protection for a trade mark shall also lapse:
(i) on failure to put to genuine use of the registered trade mark for the goods covered by the registration for a period of five successive years after a decision on the grant of a right of protection has been taken, unless serious reasons of non-use thereof exist,
(…)

6. Where a proceeding for the declaration of the right of protection lapsed is initiated, the burden of proof that the trade mark has been used or that serious reasons for non-use of the trade mark exist shall be on the holder of the right of protection.

The Polish Patent Office decided on the lapse of the right of protection for APETITO IR-615850 trade mark in part concerning the goods in Class 29. The owner – APETITO AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT – filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 September 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1042/08 dismissed the case and ruled that in order to aviod the situation of non-use of a trade mark, the use has to take place in the territory of the Republic of Poland. It has to have an unequivocal nature, as well as being real and serious, and should apply to a registered trade mark for goods and services covered. The actual use of a trade mark to prevent the lapse of the right of protection should consist of affixing the mark to goods and putting of such designated goods on the market within a specified period of time. The period of time is crucial for a revocation of the right protection. The preparatory steps to use the trade mark cannot be equated with the reasons to justify the occurrence of non-use of a trade mark. Taking certain preparatory steps which are without a connection with a valid reason that is preventing the use of a trade mark can not determine a dismissal of a request to decide on the lapse of the right of protection. The judgment is not final yet. APETITO AG filed a cassation complaint. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 120/09“.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 574/07

January 10th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 19 April 2004 the Polish company Browar AMBER Andrzej Przybylo from Bielkówko applied for two word-figurative trade marks HANZA PILSENER Z-279466 and PRIVAT BRAUEREI EST 1664 HANZA PILSENER EXPORT PREMIUM BIER Z-279465. However, the Polish Patent Office was not able to grant them because there existed an earlier registration for the word trade mark HANSA R-77233, first applied for on 30 December 1991 by German company Dortmunder Actien-Brauerei Aktiengesellschaft for goods in Class 32 such as beer. The right of protection was granted by the PPO on 3 March 1994.

Z-279466

Browar AMBER filed before the PPO a request to issue a decision on the lapse of the right of protection for the HANSA trade mark. The request was based on Article 169(1)(i) 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.

1. The right of protection for a trade mark shall also lapse:
(i) on failure to put to genuine use of the registered trade mark for the goods covered by the registration for a period of five successive years after a decision on the grant of a right of protection has been taken, unless serious reasons of non-use thereof exists.

On 18 November 2008, the Polish Patent Office postponed the hearings case file Sp. 574/07 and ordered the German company to provide evidence of trade mark use. The PPO asked for translated invoices confirming the sale of beer under the brand HANSA and for evidence to demonstrate the actual use of that mark. Dortmunder Actien-Brauerei Aktiengesellschaft has a 2-month deadline to file such documents.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 220/08

October 28th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office in its recent decision of 12 September 2008 act signature Sp. 220/08 applied the interpretation issued by the Polish Supreme Administrative Court in judgment of 23 April 2008, case file II GPS 1/08. See also “Trade mark law, case II GPS 1/08“. The PPO had to decide a motion to declare the expiration of TORNADO R-65213 trade mark registered for Reckitt Benkiser N.V. The motion was filed by Henkel KgaA which applied for word trade mark TORNADO Z-339055 on 2 April 2008. The disputed trade mark was applied for on 11 April 1989 in class 3 and the right of protection was granted by the Polish Patent Office on 30 October 1990. However, during the proceedings started by Henkel, the holder did not defend his rights, he did not provide any evidence that the mark was ever used in Poland. The PPO set the expiry date of protection rights of the disputed mark on the date of 31 October 1995. The period of 5 years of non-use of a trade mark was set from the day following the date of registration of that mark.

Trade mark law, case file II GSK 138/07

September 10th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 19 March 1998, with the notification of 17 September 1996, the Austrian company Red Bull GmbH has received the right of protection for its word trade mark based on the international registration IR-641378 A, in almost all classes (3, 5, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39,41 and 42). On March 2004, the Polish company Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcji Lodów “KORAL” applied for the registration of the word trade mark RED BLUE Z-277694 in Class 30 for goods such as ice creams and other products. However, the Polish Patent Office recognized earlier priority of Red Bull’s trade mark and rejected the application.

Koral requested a motion to declare the expiration of Red Bull’s trade mark rights in Class 30, claiming that the Austrian company failed to put to genuine use of the registered trade mark for the goods covered by the registration for a period of five successive years. The PPO agreed with “Koral” and declared the expiration of Red Bull’s trade mark in its decision of 30 October 2005 case file Sp. 199/04. Red Bull’s evidences of use that were based on the fact that Austrian company has put its trade mark on boxes with sweets which were later sent during different occasions to customers and business partners were found insufficient. The date on which five years period ended was set by the PPO on 9 July 2004 (the date on which the request for invalidation was filed). Both parties filed a complaint against this decision. The Polish company did not agree with PPO’s findings as regards trade mark rights’ expiration date, and the Austrian company claimed that PPO should consider reputation of its trade mark.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 7 September 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 557/06 held that reputation is not taken into account during proceedings for lapse of a right of protection. Arguments that Koral company has no standing were rejected by the Court because both parties were also involved in unfair competition proceeding before civil court. Once again, both companies filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 September 2008 case file II GSK 138/07 ruled that the reputation of a trade mark is irrelevant when there are the invalidation proceedings. This is not the proper stage. The reputation could be taken into account during the application proceeding for Koral company’s trade marks. A single fact of non-used Red Bull’s trade mark being an obstacle for registration was a sufficient condition for declaring its expiry. Koral has also called into question the date of expiry of the right of protection. It was the reason for the Court to discuss this issue in the extended chamber. The Supreme Administrative Court in its opinion of 23 April 2008 case file II GPS 1/08 gave a very detailed explanation of that problem. See also “Trade mark law, case II GPS 1/08“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 252/06

June 30th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The British company Imperial Tobacco Limited requested the Polish Patent Office to decide in litigation procedure on the lapse of a right of protection for trade mark MOON R-91725 owned by Polish company Altadis Polska S.A. Imperial Tobacco based its legal interest on the fact that it has applied for the recognition on the territory of the Republic of Poland of the protection for the international trademarks with the word element MOON IR-811335, IR-812000, IR-811953 and IR-811992. These trade marks were intended to designate goods in Class 34. The Company wanted to use them in Poland. Imperial Tobacco also pointed out that the trade mark MOON R-91725 was not used on the Polish territory in the way that is required by law.

Altadis demanded the dismissal of the request. The Polish company argued that Imperial Tobacco has no legal interest in seeking the lapse of a right of protection for the trade mark MOON R-91725, because John Player & Sons Limited of Ireland is the company entitled to international registrations of above-mentioned trade marks.

The PPO dismissed the request and PPO’s decision was upheld by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 March 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 2048/05. The Court based its reasoning on the lack of legal interest. Imperial filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 February 2007 case file II GSK 252/06 held that the entrepreneur who plans to place on the domestic market identical or similar goods bearing a sign that is identical or similar to registered but unused trademark, has a legal interest in requesting the PPO for the decision on the lapse of a right of protection for the trade mark because of its non-use by the holder, provided, however, that such entrepreneur will demonstrate that its intention is real and genuine, especially if it’s a manufacturer of such goods and introduces them to a common market under the sign.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 698/08

April 28th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 15 April 2003 the Polish Patent Office (PPO) received a request filed by Kosmetyczno Lekarska Spółdzielnia Pracy IZIS from Warsaw to declare the lapse of protection rights for the AMBER R-98839 trade mark registered for Evyap Sabun,Yag,Gliserin Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., Istambuł (Turkey) in class 3 for goods such as bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices. This trade mark was registered on 19 November 1997, with priority date as of 9 February 1994. The request was based on non-use of AMBER trade mark.

IZIS justified its legal interest in requesting the PPO to decide on the lapse of the right of protection because it is the manufacturer of products in class 3 (cosmetics: creams, cosmetics milks, lotions, tonics) that are labeled with AMBER sign and because of the fact that the Polish Patent Office rejected IZIS’s request of 10 April 2003 for invalidation of the right of protection of the disputed trade mark, and held that the AMBER R-98839 trade mark was an obstacle to the application for registration of IZIS word trademark AMBER – IZIS, Z-161082.

During the proceedings before the PPO the Turkish company submitted evidence of actual use of the disputed trade mark only in respect of soaps. On 5 April 2003 the PPO ruled on the lapse of the right of protection for AMBER R-98839 for goods in class 3 such as “cosmetics”. The Turkish company filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The VAC rejected the motion in its decision of 10 March 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1811/07. The Court held that the term “cosmetics” covers a wide range of cosmetics products intended for various use: industrial, cleaning, protective or fragrance and beautification. The fact that soaps are within the scope of “cosmetics” did not justify the findings of an actual use of the disputed trade mark in respect for all cosmetics where the mark is actually used only in respect of soaps, which were, moreover, identified by the applicant in the description of goods right next to cosmetics. The court also noted that according to article 169(6) 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 subsequent amendments.

Where a proceeding for the declaration of the right of protection lapsed is initiated, the burden of proof that the trademark has been used or that serious reasons for non-use of the trade mark exist shall be on the holder of the right of protection.

Or as the Court said, passivity during the burden of proof is the problem of the trade mark holder. In this case, the Turkish company during proceedings before the Polish Patent Office has not disclosed the existence of valid reasons for non-use, for any goods except soap. The company from Turkey filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The SAC in its judgment of 3 February 2009, case file II GSK 698/08 held that the Nice Classification of goods is not conclusive as to the nature of goods belonging to each of the classes. It has only an auxiliary nature during the process of formulation of lists of goods for signs that were applied for to the Patent Office as to organize the goods and services in accordance to its characteristics.

In case of a dispute before the Patent Office in proceedings for the declaration of lapse of the rights of protection for trade mark as regards to the part of the goods, as a result of non-use of a registered trade mark, it is required to assess the actual attribiution of the disputed goods to a category, regardless of how it the list of these goods was drawn up. In SAC’s opinion, the Polish Patent Office, followed by the first instance court, have failed to analyze the similarity of the goods for which AMBER trade mark has been registered for and their attribution to a given category. Both the PPO and the VAC did not answer the most important question do soap and cosmetics belong to the same category of goods? It was required by the PPO to assess what is the actual attribution of the disputed goods to what category, regardless of how the list of these goods was done. If you lodge a complaint on the decision of the Polish Patent Office, the first instance court (the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw) is obliged to review the decision in terms of its compliance with the substantive law and rules of conduct. The SAC held also that the PPO did not examine sufficiently the question of whether there was the important reasons for non-use of a registered mark, and this was due to the ongoing proceedings on the invalidation of the right to registration of the trade mark. The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the contested judgment, and ordered the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw to reconsider the case.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 13/07

July 19th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish entrepreneur Wierzbicki Jan, Krzywdziński Andrzej Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno Handlowo Usługowe MACRO applied to the Polish Patent Office for the right of protection for the trade mark ŚWIAT KAWY I HERBATY (TEA AND COFFE WORLD) Z-205579, for goods in Classes 30, 42. Dariusz Z. who conducts its business under the company name “Świat Kawy i Herbaty”, and who had established contractual relationships with the applicant, submited to the PPO his observations as to the existence of grounds that may cause a right of protection to be denied. The PPO refused to grant the right of protection for the trade mark “ŚWIAT KAWY I HERBATY”. MACRO filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 July 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 871/06 upheld the contested decision and MACRO filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 May 2007 case file II GSK 13/07 held that the company name (firm) of a individual person is its personal right/interest and it may be an obstacle to registration of a trade mark. According to the SAC, the sale of goods on the stand/trading post under the trade name identical to that trade mark cannot be treated as a trade mark use since the essence of the trade mark is to identify the goods with a particular trader, and the use of the mark should primarily consist of placing a mark on the products or their packaging.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 173/06

November 8th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 10 December 2003, Eska Nord Sp. z o. o. requested the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection for “Radio 73,2 Fm ESKA” R-98909 trade mark due to the non-use. The applicant explained that since 1993 it operates as a commercial radio station that broadcasts its program in the Tri-City region (Gdańsk, Sopot and Gdynia) and the surrounding area, using the ESKA-NORD brand. The applicant has claimed its legal interest (locus standi) from the fact that the District Court in Gdańsk issued on 1 August 2003 an order prohibiting Radio ESKA S.A. the broadcasting at radio frequency 94.6 MHz in Gdynia and 90.7 Mhz in Gdansk, and prohibiting radio broadcasting and advertising under the names Eska and Eska Trójmiasto.

R-98909

Radio Eska S.A. sought to dismiss the request and provided the correspondence with the National Broadcasting Council on the use in 1999, of the questioned trade mark in the registered form. The company explained also that it ceased using in “73.2” number in the questioned sign as it was justified because it changed the broadcasting frequency under the Regulation of the Minister of Communications dated 16 December 1999 on the frequency allocation and frequency ranges in the Republic of Poland and the conditions of their use Official Journal No 109, item 1252.

The PPO its decision of 21 February 2005 dismissed the request and pointed out that timeframe to be considered whether disputed trade mark was used and in what form includes the period of 5 year, i.e. between dates of 10 December 1998 and 10 December 2003.

The Voivodeship administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgmen of 7 February 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 1749/05 dismissed the complaint. The Court, pointed out to the fact that the use of the trade mark in broadcasted programs and in correspondence was the use in the course of trade and it met the requirement of genuine use as referred to in the IPL. The Court also noted that under Article 19(1) of the TRIPS the important reasons of the non-use is justified, are import restrictions or other government requirements for goods or services protected by a trademark.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 October 2006 case file II GSK 173/06 held that the use of a trade mark in a form that differs from that for of a trade mark for which it was granted a right of protection, but in elements which do not alter its distinctive character, is also deemed as the genuine use. The SAC ruled also that there was the use of the trade mark in the form of RDS (Radio Data System) during the broadcast of radio programs and within a website available at eska.pl, presenting the logo of the station. In the first case while listening to the station with a radio equipped with RDS there were presented verbal communications, including communication with the station name (in this case: Radio Eska).