Polish IP & IT law » product packaging

Archive for: product packaging

Trade mark law, case V CSK 293/09

September 2nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polish company Technopol sp. z o.o. succeeded to register in the Polish Patent Office over a hundred word and word-figurative trade marks in the form of Arabic numeral “100″ and its multiples (200, 300, etc.) together with the word “Panoramicznych” or “Panoram”. Technopol was sued by another Polish entrepreneur, Roman Oraczewski who publishes crossword magazines under such titles as “222 Panoramiczne”, “333 Panoramiczne”, “500 Krzyżówek”, “300 Krzyżówek z Uśmiechem”, “300 Krzyżówek Panorama Rozrywki”. Mr Oraczewski claimed protection to its press titles and Technopol filed counter claims based on Article 10 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments.

Article 10.1. Such indication of products or services or its lack, which may mislead customers in relation to the origin, quantity, quality, components, manufacturing process, usefulness, possible application, repair, maintenance and another significant features of products or services as well as concealing the risks connected with their use, shall be the act of unfair competition.
2. Releasing for free circulation products in the packing which may cause effects referred to in section 1 above shall be the act of unfair competition, unless the use of such packing is justified by technical reasons.

Technopol requested the court to issue preliminary injuction ordering Mr Oraczewski to cease the sale and introduction to the market of all his magazines bearing titles that are identical or similar to Technopol’s trade marks. The Court granted the injunctive relief. Mr. Oraczewski did not agree with such order and after couple of years this case ended in a final dismissal of the application for preliminary injunction. Mr. Oraczewski sued Technopol for the compensation for the loss incurred due to the enforcement of the injunction. He claimed over 67.000.000 PLN loss. According to Article 746 §1 of the Civil Proceedings Code – CPC (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 43, item 296, with subsequent amendments, when a preliminary injunction has been granted and the plaintiff fails to file the principal claim, withdraws it, the claim fails for procedural reasons, or is dismissed as unfounded, the defendant may demand compensation for the loss incurred due to the enforcement of the injunction. The claim expires if it is not pursued within one year from the moment the loss occured. This provision makes a plaintiff who obtained a preliminary injunction but ultimately failed with its principal claim liable towards the defendant for the loss caused by the injunction.

100_panoramicznych-cover

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 25 February 2010 case file V CSK 293/09 held that the liability provided under Article 746 § 1 of the CPC is independent of plaintiff’s fault. However, the Court dismissed Mr Oraczewski complaint because he did not follow the preliminary injunction order.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 370/10

July 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its order 17 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 370/10 held that if the party did not act properly within a given period of time in court proceedings without its fault, the court may decide on the request, on the restoration of a deadline. The request for restoration shall be filed within the Court, in which the act was to be made within seven days from the time as the cause of transgression ceased. The request for restoration of a deadline to file a complaint must be filed through the court or authority. The restoration of a deadline has unique nature and can only occur if the party convincingly proves of the absence of its guilt. The lack of guilt means a situation in which circumstances that were impossible to overcome and that were independent from the party, have occurred , and these were the reasons that the deadline set by the law was exceeded (see the order of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 April 2008 case file I OZ 246/08).

In assessing the occurrence of this condition, the Court has to adopt an objective “test of care”, which may be required from everyone duly taking care of its interests. The restoration is therefore not admissible if the party is guilty of even slight negligence. If the party is represented by a professional representative, while assessing the guilt of not preserving a deadline, the representative acts should be considered, adopting an objective test of care, which may be required from a professional legal representative duly caring for the interests of its client, with the reservation that negligence of people, whom such representative employs, burden the representative itself, and therefore do not release the party from the guilt in non-reserving a deadline.

This means that the negligence made by administrative staff in activities necessary to preserve the procedural deadline, which was commissioned by a patent attorney who is a representative of a party, does not justify the restoration of a missed deadline.

Terravita Holding Establishment from Vaduz, Lichtenstein was a party who lost this case. See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 370/10“.

Readability test of pharmaceutical products’ leaflet

June 2nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the Regulation of the Minster of Health of 26 April 2010 on the leaflet readability test (in Polish: rozporządzenie w sprawie badania czytelności ulotki), Journal of Laws of 18 May 2010, No. 84, item 551, the Polish Minister of Health provided the principles of examination under which the content of the information attached to the pharmaceutical products is understandable.

The readability test of a pharmaceutical product’s leaflet is carried out by the responsible entity (an entrepreneur who applies for or has received the marketing authorization for a medicinal product), or any other person on its behalf, to ensure that a consumer understands the relevant information contained in this leaflet and will be able to correctly apply the medicinal product. The readability test should be conducted with the following minimum requirements:
- a leaflet should be in the version that will be attached to the packaging of a pharmaceutical product, or its color layout design,
- test participants are those who may use the medicinal product, including those who have difficulty understanding written information.

The test is carried out with ten participants. A positive test result means that for each question, 90% of study participants may find the information on a given leaflet, of which 90% may show their understanding and give the correct answer and to proceed with the medicinal product.

Product labelling, case VI SA / Wa 478/10

May 29th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 19 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 478/10 ruled that the labeling of food products must comply with the rules on food labeling. The full identity of the manufacturer should be placed on the product packaging and a P.O. Box does not identify the manufacturer and cannot be regarded as its address.

Categories: Polish law | Voivodeship Administrative Court | product packaging.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 370/10

May 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its order 14 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 370/10 held that the complaint to the Administrative Court must be filed through the authority, whose action or inactivity is the subject of the complaint within thirty days from the date of notification to the applicant of the decision. The principle filing a complaint through a public authority means that in case of complaint filed directly to the administrative court or through a public authority other than the one whose action or inactivity is the subject of the complaint, the court or authority should pass it on to the competent authority of public administration. The date when the complaint was passed on by the court (public body) decide on the preservation of the deadline for bringing an action. If the complaint is brought after the deadline to file it, it shall be rejected. Terravita Holding Establishment from Vaduz, Lichtenstein was a party who lost this case. See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 370/10“.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 746/09

August 23rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office registered the design of a bottle in the form of a contour map of Poland Rp-11003, applied for by Przedsiębiorstwo Wielobranżowe Euro-Kamil Polska sp. z o. o. from Wrocław.

Rp-11003

Jacek Andruszkiewicz from Warszawa filed a request for invalidation of this design. Mr Andruszkiewicz argued that the questioned design lacks of novelty. He pointed out to the 3D trade mark registration R-91920 owned by Jacek Andruszkiewicz Jolanta Duch s.c. DAYGLOB Biuro Exportowo-Importowe from 6 October 1995.

R-91920

The PPO invalidated the right in registration in its decision of 14 January 2009, case file Sp. 555/07. The PPO held that Jacek Andruszkiwicz had a legal interest in seeking the invalidation, as a competitor in the market of bottles. Euro-Kamil filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 22 June 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 746/09 repealed the contested decision and held it unenforceable. The Court ruled that the PPO did not examine if the legal interest was real and sent this case for reconsideration.

Trade mark law, case I CSK 96/08

March 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

Lindt's hare

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

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

Terravita's hare

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

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

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

This time, Terravita brought a cassation complaint to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland. The Court in its judgment of 3 October 2008, act signature I CSK 96/08 held that in the circumstances of this case, there is no doubt that disputed hares are not identical and only its shape is the same, since they are manufactured from the same form. However on the foil of both hares, in a prominent place, one may find adequately put signs “Lindt Goldhase” or “Terravita”, which in fact makes the likelihood of consumer confusion practically excluded.

The Supreme Court cited its earlier case law. In its judgment of 1 February 2001, act signature I CKN 1128/98 (published at OSNC 2001, No. 9, item. 136) The Supreme Court held that if word-figurative trade marks are used on the market then the word elements of such signs should have been attributed the distinvtice characteristics. In its judgment 8 April 2003, act signature IV CKN 22/01 (published at OSP 2004, No. 5, item. 61), the SC held that in case of word-figurative trade marks the word element has the distinctive characteristics because it determines the ease of assimilation and the perception by the public. In its judgment of 14 November 2003, act signature I CK 176/02 (unpublished) The Supreme Court excluded the risk of confusion in a situation where bottles used by the plaintiff and the defendant had the same shape (as in the facts of this case these bottles came from the same form), but were labeled with various word and images elements.

In conclusion, the Court held that in the case of two identical products, one of which concerns the Community trade mark, the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of article 9(1)(b) of CTMR does not exist, if the other characteristics of goods, in particular bearing the word or image, allow them to be clearly distinguished.

Trade mark law, case III SA/Wr 499/08

January 30th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław in its judgment of 28 January 2009 case file III SA/Wr 499/08 held that the powers of sanitary authorities include the power to control of foodstuffs also in terms of their marking and labeling. According to article 120 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments, the trade mark is protected as a whole regardless of its composition. So questioning the legality of a trade mark that was made by the State Sanitary Inspection, with the assumption that part of the label of foodstuff is a registered trademark, lead to an unacceptable invasion of the powers reserved by law for the Polish Patent Office. Indeed, such action of SSI would, in fact, “prohibit” the use of a trade mark, while the State Sanitary Inspection cannot encroach on the powers reserved by law for other state authorites.

Article 120
1. Any sign capable of being represented graphically may be considered as trademark, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

2. The following, in particular, may be considered as trademarks within the meaning of paragraph (1): words, designs, ornaments, combinations of colours, the three-dimensional shape of goods or of their packaging, as well as melodies or other acoustic signals.

3. Any references in this Act to:
(i ) trademarks shall also mean service marks,
(ii) goods shall mean, in particular, industrial or handicraft goods, agriculture products or natural products, such as, in particular, waters, minerals, raw materials, as well as, subject to Article 174(3), services,
(iii) counterfeit trademarks shall mean identical trademarks illegally used or trademarks which in the course of trade can not be distinguished from the trademarks registered for the goods covered by the right of protection,
(iv) earlier trademarks shall mean the trademarks applied for registration or registered basing on the earlier priority.

A situation where an entrepreneur has advertised tea, using only, image of cannabis-like leaves cannot be considered as advertising of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. In this case, it was not a promotion of any other substances prohibited by the law because, there was no name of any specific drug or psychotropic substance. Moreover, this issue goes beyond the competence of the State Sanitary Inspection.

The cassation complaint was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 31 May 2010 case file II OSK 832/09.

Industrial design and trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 710/08

November 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 10 April 2001 the Polish company Rosinski Andrzej Rosinski Michal Rosinska Joanna Zaklad Produkcji Opakowan Rosinski i S-ka, Sp. J (this is the actual company name – the firm, which consist of names of partnes “Rosinski Andrzej Rosinski Michal Rosinska Joanna”, the name “packages production plant” and the type of legal entity they operate “general/partnership company”) applied for design registration for bottle with top. On 14 January 2003, the Polish Patent Office has registered the design, Rp-2543.

Rp-2543

In 2006, Unilever NV of Holland asked the PPO to annul its decision regarding Rp-2543. Unilever based its claims on provisions of article 117(2) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No. 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 119, item 1117, with later amendments.

A finding that the exploitation of the industrial design infringes third parties’ personal or author’s economic rights will also constitute a ground for invalidation of the right in registration.

Unilever’s legitimate interest to request the invalidation was based the earlier 3D trade mark registration, R-134678, which was granted by the PPO in a decision of 28 January 1999. However, the problem with applying article 117(2) lays in the rules of Polish administrative procedure. The PPO is not allowed to decide if third parties rights are infringed.

R-134678

The PPO in its decision of 19 October 2007, act signature Sp. 187/06 invalidated the contested design. The Office recognized the similarity between the trade mark and the design based on arguments presented by Unilever’s patent attorney. The Polish company appealed. Its representative called into question the correctness of PPO’s decision in applying provisions of article 117(2). In his opinion the infringement issue should be decided by the civil court, not the administrative body which the Polish Patent Office is. However, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a judgment in a judgment of 21 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 710/08, did not agree with the Polish company arguments. In court’s opinion the PPO has been given the opportunity to assess similarities between a registered trade mark and a design. PPO’s conclusions that there exist a significant similarity may entitle the Office to decide with regard to the infringement of third parties rights.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. It would clarify the interpretation of article 117(2) of the IPL.

See also my posts entitled “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Trade mark law, case II SA 3199/03

January 11th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 October 2004 case file II SA 3199/03 held that the capability of distinguishing the goods or services (so-called abstract ability to distinguish goods or services) must be distinguished from the sufficient distinctiveness. Only after finding that a given sign is capable to serve as a trademark, its distinctive ability in concreto is subject to examination. The trade mark cannot be identified with the product itself.

R-116211

The contradictions with the law or rules of social coexistence, that are the condition of inadmissibility to register a trade mark must not only connect directly to the sign itself, but also to the circumstances surrounding the registration of the mark if they contain elements contrary to law or the rules of social coexistence. In addition, the violation of other laws than those included in the TMA should be considered as the registration contrary to law. The registration of a 3D trade mark whose sole purpose is to monopolize the market of a given product and thus deprive the competitors of the freedom of establishment as regards the possibility of further production of the same product, is violation of the provisions of the law.