Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: trade mark examination

Trade mark law, case II GSK 371/14

April 10th, 2015, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 5 May 2010, PLAY Brand Management Limited applied to the Polish Patent Office for the right of protection for a single color trade mark Z-369967 defined in PANTONE scale as 2627C, for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38.

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection and decided that the applied sign was not inherently distinctive in relation to communications services for mobile phones, and the applicant has not demonstrated sufficiently that the mark has acquired distinctivenes through use. PLAY submitted request for re-examination of the matter. The PPO ruled that the sign in question may serve as a trade mark, since it was applied graphically and identified using the code recognized at international level, i.e. Pantone number. Such a figurative representation of a single color is in line with the requirements set for a designation that in order to fulfill its function as a trade mark must be clear, precise, complete in itself, easily accessible, understandable, fixed and objective. However, while analyzing the distinctiveness of the applied trade mark in concreto, the PPO stressed that, according to settled case-law, the essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee to the consumer or end user the identity of the origin of the designated goods or designated services, by allwowing him to distinguish the goods or services from the goods or services of different origin. The goal of distinctiveness of a trade mark is to provide a given sign with such features that in the minds of market players they will clearly indicate that the product (or service) marked in this way is derived from the specific entity. Therefore, the attention sould be paid to the customary use of the trade mark, as a designation of origin in the specific sectors, as well as the perception of relevant consumers. In the opinion of the PPO when it comes to color per se, the existence of distinctiveness (without any prior use) is possible only in exceptional circumstances, in particular, when the number of goods or services for which the trade mark was applied for is very limited and the relevant market is very specific. Those conditions must be interpreted in the light of the public interest, which is based on the fact that the availability of colors cannot be unduly limited for all other entrepreneurs. The PPO noted that the modern technology allows to generate an almost infinite number of shades of each color, but in assessing whether they differ from each other, one should take into the perception of a relevant group, and therefore the average consumer. The number of colors that people are able to actually identify, is small, therefore the number of colors available as potential trade marks that would allow for distinguishing the goods had to be regarded as very limited. Moreover, the market for mobile services is not narrow and specific. Such market does not only cover telecom operators, but it is a collection of current and potential buyers of a product or service, respectively, its size depends on the number of buyers that express interest in all products, with an adequate income and availability of products for purchase. Market size is a characteristic that describes the quantitative state of the market at a given time in number of consumers (users) of a given type of goods or services. The PPO stated that the scale of Pantone, as the RAL or CMYK scales, is a very precise tool used to describe the color, but little practical from the standpoint of conditions of a normal trade and market turnover. The description of the Pantone color will not be a sufficient indication for the average consumer. The PPO also decided that less than four years (the company started its operation in 2007, and market survey evidence was conducted in 2011) could not be considered as a sufficient period to establish that the sign was in long-term use. In the context of proving that the sign has acquired secondary meaning, such time was certainly too short. PLAY Brand Management filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 October 2013 case file VI SA/Wa 1378/13 dismissed it. The Court ruled that the PPO properly examined all the evidence material and properly justified its decision. The VAC as the PPO relied on the opinion of legal commentators and the so-called “color depletion/exhaustion” theory. According to this concept, the number of colors that the human eye is able to recognize is small and limited. Therefore, none of the colors should be subject to anyone’s “ownership”, or generally speaking – the exclusive right, and these colors should be keept in the public domain, and therefore freely available for all entrepreneurs. The theory of shades’ confusion support the first one. The second provides that human perception is so limited that the average consumer is not able to distinguish between a large number of shades of different colors. Applying both theories to present commercial realities it should be borne in mind that the majority of trade marks exists in an environment where decisions on the purchase of goods or use of services are made hastily, without much hesitation on the part of consumers. It is difficult to expect that consumers will conduct an analysis and comparison of similar shades of color, and on this basis, they will be associating the product with its origin. The Court also agreed that the acquired distinctiveness has not been proven. Surveys were conducted in a group consisting of 1000 respondents who use mobile phones and thus who should have knowledge about the market and mobile network operators. However, these people differently responded to the two questions: i) with which mobile operators’ brands do they associate the color, and ii) with which brands do they associate the color.
For the first question, 59% of respondents indicated PLAY as the operator, and only 11% respondents of the same group associated the color with PLAY while answering the second question, although the results should be concurrent, because the second question has not been addressed to random group of people, but a group of people who use mobile services. PLAY Brand Management filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 March 2015 II GSK 371/14 dismissed it.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 146/13

May 7th, 2014, Tomasz Rychlicki

On September 2007, Mr Jarosław Spychała applied to the Polish Patent Office for the right of protection for the word trade mark LEGO-LOGOS Z-330692 for services in Classes 35, 36 and 41. The PPO informed the applicant that his trade mark is similar to series of signs registered and owned by LEGO Juris A/S. Mr Spychała argued that the applied sign is the neologism derived from the ancient Greek language, and the term LEGO simply means “to read, think or speak”, and the term LOGOS means “learning” in a broad sense. In academic and education circles the term LEGO-LOGOS is associated with a particular form of education in philosophy and in building moral attitudes. The mark is directed at people who wish to explore philosophy and knowledge.

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection because the applied trade mark was similar to the word trade mark LEGO R-72961 that was registered with an earlier priority for almost similar services. Mr Spychała filed a complaint against this decision and argued that the fact that compared signs share the same identical word element is not sufficient to refuse the protection for the later trade mark. The most important was the subject of the applied trade mark – a philosophical concept developed by the applicant and its popularization.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 July 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 1201/11 dismissed the complaint. The Court noted that the PPO properly made the comparison of goods and services and did not erred in comparison of both signs. The VAC agreed with the PPO that the word element LEGO can also mean to fold or to assemble, and thus relate to specific products – blocks that are marked by registered trademarks of LEGO Juris A/S. The Court pointed out that the applicant while describing the project of philosophical education under the name LEGO-LOGOS has also showed that he drew the expression of LEGO from Danish language. Regardless of what language (Ancient Greek or Danish) the dominant element LEGO was taken, it is a word that does not exist in the Polish language. Its importance in ancient Greek or Danish is not understandable for the average Polish recipient of goods or services. It may be related to the characteristics of goods – just blocks marked with this sign. Mr Spychała filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 March 2014 case file II GSK 146/13 dismissed it.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 413/11

August 3rd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1124/10“. GRAAL S.A decided to file a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 May 2012 case file II GSK 413/11 dismissed it and ruled that both the views established in Polish case-law and legal doctrine emphasize the fact that not the differences between the signs, but the similarities are assessed, and ultimately, the strength of this similarity determines whether there is likelihood of confusion or association between the trade marks, at least, at the part of the public.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1780/11

June 19th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company NTT System S.A. applied for the right of protection for word trade mark NTTonLine Z-330715 for services in Class 35. The PPO noted that the entry in the list of services such as “management of the licensing of goods and services to third parties”, was placed in the trade mark application in Class 35. The PPO ruled that it is a very general term, referring to all goods and services. Meanwhile, according to International Classification of Goods and Services “licensing of industrial property” and “licensing of computer programs” should be classified in class 45. Therefore, PPO asked for clarification of the original term – so as to eliminate any doubt regarding the scope of protection of the trade mark NTTonLine, because the general reference to all goods and services could in fact raise the risk of inclusion of general terms that belong to the different classes. NTT System did not submit any additional documents or corrections and the PPO discontinued the examination proceedings. NTT filed a complaint against this decision, and later withdraw it.

The Voivodeship Administratice Court in its order of 8 December 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2122/10 was required to examine whether such withdrawal is not intended to evade the law or if it would leave in force a void decision. The Court ruled that that withdrawal was acceptable in this case. NTT filed a cassation complaint, and the Supreme Administrative Court in its order of 9 August 2011 case file II GSK 1127/11 annulled the order of the VAC and returned the case for further reconsideration.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 April 2012 case file VI SA/Wa 1780/11 found that this time NTT System did not request the withdrawal of the complaint, and demanded a hearing. The Company argued that it is not true that the services listed in Class 35 are general in nature, and they need to be clarified, because for all general terms in the Nice Classification are marked with an asterisk, and only such terms should be clarified. Moreover, the contested final decision of the Polish Patent Office violated the law as it was issued by an unauthorized person – an expert not having the appropriate authority to consider this particular case. Such authorization should be granted by the President of the PPO. The Court held that the most important is the recommendation that the particular text appearing in the alphabetical list should be used as the indication of goods or services, not a general term. And the mere fact that a specific good or service are listed in alphabetical order does not affect the individual decision of national industrial property offices on the possibility of registration of the mark for such goods or services. The wording of the list of goods and services must be clear not only for the applicant, but also for third parties who either may submit an opposition to the grant of the right of protection, or simply by applying or using the sign, they wish to avoid a collision with a similar trade mark with an earlier priority. The court considered the request of the PPO that was addressed to the applicant in order to clarify the list of services, as justified. The Court ruled that the President of the Polish Patent Office is empowered to authorize certain persons not only to make decisions on her behalf in certain matters, but also to select of experts or assessors to act in certain cases. The expert examining the case was properly authorized by the President of the PPO. Taking into account all the arguments, the Court dismissed the complaint.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 72/11

February 29th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 25 May 2006, the Polish company AERECO Wentylacja Sp. z o.o. applied for the word-figurative trade mark HIGROSTEROWANIE Z-311192 for goods in Classes 07, 09, 11 and 35. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection, claiming that the applied sign does not have sufficient level of distinctive character. The PPO pointed out this trade mark is built from the core “sterowanie” (in English: controling/steering) and the prefix higro (English: hygro) which indicates a semantic link to the humidity. The sign that is created from these two elements, although not listed in dictionaries, is not a fanciful term and simply means “to regulate humidity”.

Z-311192

AERECO filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1117/10 dismissed it, and ruled that both in the legal commentaries and the case law of administrative courts, it is considered in particular, that the descriptive sign is one that has the characteristics of the topical, concrete and direct descriptiveness. The topicality of the signs should be assessed on the objective basis and consist of examining whether from the perspective of current market conditions, a sign is useful for description of the goods and if as such it should be accessible to all participants. The rule of concrete descriptiveness states that a sign which indicates the specific characteristics of the product for which the designation is intended may be exempted from the registration as descriptive one. The direct descriptiveness occurs when a descriptive sign informs directly, clearly and unambiguously about the characteristics of a particular goods, so that characteristics may be interpreted directly, and not by associations.

The Court shared the position of the PPO, that the the questioned sign simply means “controling humidity” and thus explicitly indicates the characteristics of the designated goods and can not be appropriated to describe the products or services of one company. The VAC did not find anything fanciful in the figurative element of the HIGROSTEROWANIE trade mark. ARECO filed a cassation complaint but it was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 29 February 2012 case file II GSK 72/11.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1033/10

February 22nd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

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

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

Trade mark law, case 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 II GSK 553/10

August 19th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

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

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

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

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2519/10

June 6th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 10 March 2006, Red Bull GmbH applied for the color trade mark Z-307435. The trade mark application included the following description “a mark consists of the color blue (2/4/C) and silver (877 C) that fill half of a sign”. However, the company did not specify how both colors fill the applied trade mark, i.e. whether horizontally or vertically. In the decision on the grant of the right of protection that was issued of 2008, the PPO indicated only two categories of the Vienna Classification: 29.01.2004 and 29.01.2006. In its resolution of 2009, the PPO decided to correct the decision as the so-called obvious clerical mistake. The Polish Patent Office justified its resolution based on reproductions of the trade mark that were attached to the trade mark application Z-307435. The PPO decided that the applied trade mark was a figurative one and noted that the trade mark was vertically divided into two parts. The PPO ruled that the category 25.05.2001 (backgrounds divided vertically into two parts) should be also added, because even the applicant stated that the colors fill in half, and presented relevant reproductions of the sign, where one can clearly see two rectangles placed side by side. The PPO added also the category 04.26.2002 (rectangles).

Z-307435

Red Bull filed a complaint against the resolution of the PPO before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. The Company claimed that its trade mark should not be defined in the PPO’s decision as a figurative, but as an abstract colorful trade mark, which accurately reflects its true nature. Red Bull argued that the Polish Patent Office erred in applying categories of the Vienna classification, since the application concerns an abstract colorful sign. Consequently, it was correct to include in a trade mark application Z-307435 only a category that was corresponding to the colors. Red Bull claimed that the Polish Industrial Property law and Article 15(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) allow for the registration of combinations of colors in the Republic of Poland.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 April 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 2519/10 overturned the questioned resolution and held it unenforceable. The VAC ruled that both the doctrine of law and case-law stand on a restrictive view that the admissibility of correcting “clerical and accounting mistake/miscarriage” is determined by the premise of “obviousness” of the mistake. The “obviousness” of a clerical, accounting or another mistake should either result from the nature of the mistake or from the comparison of a decision with its justification or with the content of the request, or other circumstances. An obvious mistake is deemed as an apparent, contrary to the goal, deliberate misuse of the word, apparently erroneous spelling or an omittment. The Court held that the Vienna categories added by the PPO defined the shape of a sign, of which there was no mention in the trade mark application. So, the PPO “clarified” the content its decision of May 2008 by pointing to the shape of the trade mark applied for. By describing the form of a reproduction attached to the trade mark application, the PPO referred to a figure of rectangle and consequently attributed such a form to the trade mark at issue. Meanwhile, a reproductions has its own form, that is independent of the form of the trade mark itself. A form, shapes and dimensions of the reproductions (photographs or photo-copies of a trade mark) are defined in § 9 of the Regulation of the Prime Minister of 8 July 2002 on filing and processing of trademark applications. The Court found that there was no reason to draw conclusions about the shape of the trade mark only on the basis of the rectangular shapes of the reproduction included in the trade mark application Z-307435.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1122/10

February 11th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 25 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1122/10 ruled that a trade mark application and examination case cannot be decided based on general assumptions and in an automatic way, because it is always resolved with regard to its specific conditions and references. The Polish Patent Office is required to conduct proceedings in such a way as to increase the trust of citizens in the State bodies and public awareness and appreciation of the law. According to the mentioned above principles, the PPO is required to precisely explain the circumstances of the case, respond to all claims and allegations and to include both public interest and the interests of the party, in the decision rendered.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 619/09

December 24th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 4 November 2010 case file II GSK 619/09 ruled that weak distinctive characteristics of trade marks at issue, obviously did not justify, the infringement of these rights. Nevertheless, the proprietor of the mark mark with weak distinctive characteristics, and this is due to the reduction in this sign to presence of informational elements, has to tolerate the existence of a competitive trade marks, containing similar elements that have informational nature. The limit of that tolerance is the similarity of opposing signs, if it could mislead the purchaser of the goods.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 11/10

November 23rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 22 October 1999 Jarosław Synowiec Agencja Kurier-Media from Iława applied for the word-figurative trade mark “KURIER Iławski TYGODNIK POWIATU IŁAWSKIEGO” Z-208891 for goods and services in class 16 and 42 such as publishing and printing a newspaper. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection. The PPO found that the applied trade mark is also the title of the magazine with the same graphics and colors, which is published by Wydawnictwo Pomorskie in which Jarosław Synowiec previously worked as editor in chief. Due to long-term presence on the Polish market, this sign became widely known in public. Jarosław Synowiec filed a complaint against this decision.

Z-208891

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 6 July 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 11/10 dissmissed the complaint. According to the Court, the PPO reasonably assumed that the registration of the questioned trade mark was inadmissible because of the conflict with the law and rules of social coexistence. The registration of signs, whose use as a trade mark could be an act of infringement of property rights of third parties, such as the right to the company, the right to press title, copyright, etc. is not allowed. The VAC held also that whenever the collision of the rules specific to the system of formal protection (the principle of registration of signs) with the principle of protection of designations used effectively and genuinely in business occurs, the priority is given to the latter.

Trade mark law, case no. Sp. 541/07

November 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 30 October 2002, Centrum Szybkiej Diagnostyki Kardiologicznej “KARDIOMED” Maciej Żabówka, Maciej Bylica from Tarnów applied for the word-figurative trade mark KARDIOMED for goods in Class 36 and in Class 44 such as rental of medical equipment, devices and medical apparatus. On 1 August 2004, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection R-180711.

R-180711

Another Polish entrepreneur, Centrum Kardiologiczne KARDIOMED Lucja Kieras-Deżakowska from Sosnowiec, filed a notice of opposition against the decision of the PPO on the grant of a a right of protection. The opposing party raised a number of arguments: the infringement of the rights to the company name, the misleading nature of the questioned sign, that the application for a trade mark was made in bad faith, confusing similarity. Lucja Kieras-Deżakowska argued that on 8 August 2001 she applied for the wor-figurative trade Mark Kardiomed for goods in Class 44 such as medical services for people in medical consulting rooms, counseling and medical care, m dical diagnostics, echocardiography, ultrasound, electrocardiography, stress tests, heart rate and pressure records, medical examination, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, paramedical services. The decision on the grant of the right of protection R-162886 was given on 6 May 2005. Ms Kieras-Deżakowska claimed the similarity of signs and services.

R-162886

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 13 September 2010 case no. Sp. 541/07 dismissed the opposition. The PPO ruled that the services are different. And although the signs do have similarities, it eliminates the risk of confusion. The PPO also noted that the civil court, should assess whether the proprietor has committed an act of unfair competition. As for other grounds of the Board found no evidence to support them. The decision may be appealed against to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1133/10

October 25th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case II GSK 496/09“. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 August 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1133/10 anulled the PPO’s decision and ruled it unenforceable. The Court held that the Polish Patent Office, while assessing the similarity of the opposing signs, ignored in general the question of the impact of a trade mark on recipient/consumers/buyers of the goods bearing the sign, and therefore it did not considered in a comprehensive way the impact of the entire mark, focusing only on one of its verbal elements – PREMIUM word, without attempting to explain the “impact strength (distinguishing ability)” of PREMIUM word as an informational sign that is used to designate the exceptional quality of a product.

IR-802093

In the opinion of the courts, this issue is very important, because while examining the compared signs, the impact of the opposing character – its distinctive ability may not be indifferent, and a “weak” sign must often tolerate the coexistence of the close signs. See U. Promińska, Ustawa o znakach towarowych. Komentarz, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze PWN, Warszawa 1998, p. 42.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 501/10

October 25th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company EDIPRESSE POLSKA S.A. from Warsaw applied for the right of protection for word trade mark NEW Z-294152 for goods in Classes 16, 35 and 41. The Polish Patent Office refused to register this sign claiming that it does not have sufficient distinctive character that would allow to individualize the source of the goods. The PPO concluded that the sign is not distinctive, because it informs that the goods and services for which the registration is sought, are… new. EDIPRESSE filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 501/10 held that the common practice of the Polish Patent Office in registering trade marks containing descriptive elements was definitely too liberal, especially if it is considered that while examining the registrability, the future interest of other entrepreneurs in access to a given sign should be taken into account. According to the VAC there must be a significant reduction in the number of registered trademarks with the descriptive elements, geographical or generic names, as the result of understanding the proper function of a trade mark, because the primarily function of a trade mark is to indicate the origin of the goods from a particular undertaking. If, therefore, the applied sign may be perceived by the average consumer as information about the characteristics (properties) of goods or services, the origin from a particular geographic area, it cannot be a trademark due to lack of distinctive ability which is required for trade marks. The importance of the principle of freedom of access to certain descriptive signs must therefore lead to a significant reduction in the number of signs with descriptive elements that were registered as individual trade marks. The judgment is not final.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 691/09

October 5th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 14 October 2002, the Polish company BWS Polska Sp. z o.o. based in Zaczernie applied for the right of protection for VARNA Z-256235 trademark for goods in Class 33 such as wines. The Polish Patent Office informed the applicant that it cannot be granted a right of protection because VARNA is also a geographical name of the Bulgarian city of Varna, which is located in the eastern Black Sea region famous for producing high quality white wines. Due to the fact that the seat of the applicant is located on Polish territory, the sign may lead the potential buyers to confusion as to the origin of goods. In response, BWS noted that the sign does not contain any false information, while simultaneously indicating that it is an importer and distributor of wines from south-eastern Europe, including Bulgaria.

The PPO received also comments issued by BSG Poland Sp. z o. o. in which the company raised objection of lack of statutory requirements for the protection of the questioned trade mark. Comments were sent to BWS but the company has not agreed to these statements.

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant a right of protection. The PPO ruled that VARNA sign is information on the place of the origin of wine – the site of a wine-growing and processing, without informing the consumer about anything else. According to the PPO, the importer has the right to register its trade mark, but the choice that violates the rights of manufacturers who conduct business in the region of Varna – infringes on the principles of merchant’s honesty. A situation in which the Bulgarian wine producers could not provide the Polish consumer that the wine has been produced by them is not fair, because they were outrun by an entity whose relationship with Bulgaria is at least questionable.

BWS requested the retrial of its case. The company reduced the original list of goods to wines from Bulgaria. It argued also that, under a contract with the Bulgarian multi-vendor, which is located in Varna, it has exclusive rights to sell original bottled VARNA wine. BWS indicated that the packaging of imported wine, includes bottle shape and color and shape, color, composition and location of the graphic label and it is its own creation. The company pointed out that the Trade Mark Register includs other signs being the name of national and international cities, towns, and in its opinion, the registration of VARNA trade mark will not be the monopolization of the word, because the Varna city remains a geographical name, the name of the appellation of origin or possibly the name of the seat of the suppliers of wine.

After reconsidering the matter, the Polish Patent Office upheld the contested decision. The PPO withdrew from contesting the trade as contrary to good merchant’s practice and public policy, pointing out also that the limited list of goods also been removed as an obstacle to the misleading nature of the sign. However, the PPO ruled that VARNA is the word trade mark, with no graphics, and indicates the origin of goods, therefore, it cannot be registered. The average consumer will read the sign as the Bulgarian city or geographic region on the Black Sea, famous for making wines. BWS filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 March 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2098/08 held that the contested decision is the right. According to the Court the basic prerequisite for the grant of the right of protection is the distinctive character of a sign. The legal doctrine distinguishes between the so-called abstract distinctive ability and the concrete distinctive ability. The mark is characterized by the abstract distinctive ability, where a sign is examined abstractly (in isolation from the specific goods or services) capable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of another. The mark has concrete distinctive character when it is capable of distinguishing goods or services specified in the application to the Patent Office of goods or services of another company.

BWS filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 July 2010 case file II GSK 691/09 reversed the contested judgment and refered the case back for reconsideration. The SAC held that the VAC overlooked in its deliberations, the fact that the disputed word mark VARNA is not present in the Polish language as the name of the city in Bulgaria. This spelling of the city name does not occur in Bulgarian either (it’s Варна). However, in Polish language the city is known as Warna. Meanwhile the VAC in assessing the facts of the case stated that it was undisputed that the sign is the name of the VARNA city in Bulgaria and that by placing it on the goods (wines originating from Bulgaria) it will indicate the relevant public without difficulty and without no additional actions the origin goods. The Court had the duty to assess the legality of the contested decision of the Polish Patent Office even if the allegation was not raised in the complaint. The law requires that the assessment whether the mark is sufficiently distinctive has to be made individually for each sign. The VAC should also examine the issue whether a questioned sign due to the use of the first letter “V” and not “W” (as is correctly spelled in Polish) has sufficient distinctiveness, although phonetically the “V” and “W” letters sound the same in the Polish language. Of those grounds the SAC held that the VAC has not made an overall assessment of distinctive character of the sign in question, taking into account its visual, aural or conceptual elements, and therefore the VAC infringed on Article 113 §1 and Article 145 §1 point 1 C of the Polish Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, since it dismissed the case without adequate explanation of the matter. The SAC noted also that the BWS claimed that, under the earlier decisions of the PPO, it acquired rights of protection for trademarks, even though they were the names of cities (Melnik – a city in Bulgaria), Calama (a city in Chile), or Beverly Hills (a city in California), however, the VAC did not respond to such arguments. In light of the settled case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, the administration body can change its opinion on the content of the right conclusion, which should be issued in a specific type of cases, but it must carefully justify such a change, especially when changing the view of decisions taken in relation to the same applicant. The case-law of the administration may therefore be subject to change, if the authority demonstrates that there are reasonable grounds.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 180/10

September 6th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 June 2010 case VI SA/Wa 180/10 held that in assessing the confusing similarity the PPO should not be limited to include only one component of a complex sign while comparing it with another trade mark. On the contrary, such a comparison is made by examining the signs as whole.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1302/09

November 15th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for “METAL-CHEM” R-138491 trade mark in part for goods in Class 7. The owner Przedsiębiorstwo Wdrażania Postępu Technicznego METAL-CHEM Spółka z o.o. from Gliwice filed a complaint against this decision, claiming inter alia that the PPO refrained from taking evidence from expert witness with regard to homegenity of the goods.

R-138491

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1302/09 upheld the contested decision and ruled that the Adjudicative Board of the PPO, consisting of experts and the deciding cases in litigation proceedings may under the Article 84 § 1 of the APC appoint an experts witness to establish the facts on which the Patent Office has doubts, while the knowledge of the Board members is not sufficient.

Article 84
§ 1. If a case requires specialist information, a public administration body may consult an expert or experts for an opinion.
§ 2. An expert shall be excluded from proceedings on the basis of the rules set out in Article 24. The provisions regarding the hearing of witnesses shall also apply to experts.

It follows that the use of an experts witness should be incidental in nature as it was already discussed in by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 October 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1075/06. Thus the PPO has the right but not the obligation, to refer to any opinion and it is also indicated by the optional nature of Article 84 § 1 of the APC. The PPO as a specialized authority that grants rights of protection for trade marks and other industrial property rights under the rule of law, is the only body that verifies under litigation proceedings, whether or not the exclusive right of protection for trademark meets statutory requirements. In this case, the task of the Board was the correct assessment of the similarity of the goods contained in the opposing trade marks, in which both parties used the terms in which the general range of meaning was available and is not misleading.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1144/08

October 17th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 25 September 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1144/08, published in LEX under the no. 513878, held that the descriptiveness of a trade mark is the sole and direct information which indicates the characteristic of the goods. The signs are not deemed as descriptive if in only through indirect conclusion can be considered as a determination of such features. This case concerned the examinations proceedings of the trade mark telepizzeria Z-284471 that was applied for by the Polish company BONO A. MAZUREK Spółka Jawna for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 43.

Trade mark law, allusive signs

July 1st, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

An interesting example is BALSAM Z SADŁA ŚWISTAKA R-183603 trade mark. It should be translated as Balm of Marmot’s Fat. But still, in my ranking of allusive trade marks, the first place is given to the application filed by the Polish company Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe “Paola” Spółka z o.o. z Bielan Wrocławskich for the sign “A to ci puszka” Z-233576, which in strict translation shall be undestood as “What a can” but in fact in a loosely translation can be understood as “What a cunt”. I just wonder what the examiner of the Polish Patent Office has thought about it.

Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Patent Office | trade mark examination | trademark law.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 400/08

December 29th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1470/07“. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 28 October 2008 case file II GSK 400/08 held that the infringement of the right to the company name (the firm) as a condition for the invalidation of the registration of a trade mark, should not be prejudged by the registration of the same or similar trademark, as the name of another company.

R-222381

An important factor determining the infringement of personal or property rights of third parties, is the risk of leading a consumer to confusion as to the identity of the entrepreneur, and it determines the territorial and substantive scope of the actual activities of the entity using a given name, which is the subject of the trade mark, which has been granted the right of protection. This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of MURBET R-155245 trade mark owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Wielobranżowe MURBET Andrzej Zaborski. The proceedings were initiated by the MURBET Gabrylewicz Spółka Jawna company from Ełk.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1208/08

December 27th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 October 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1208/08 held that it is unacceptable to grant a right of protection for a sign that identical or similar to other trade mark, if it results in a right, the scope of which at least partially overlap with the scope of protection right with an earlier priority.

Z-295169

The Court held also that the problem of homogenity of the goods is a preliminary issue, which is decided before the examination of similarity of the goods because the use even of identical marks for dissimilar goods does not lead to the risk of confusion as to the origin of goods. This case concerned word-figurative trade mark application UNI-GRUNT Z-295169 applied for by Atlas Sp. z o.o. and UNIGRUNT R-86202 trade mark owned by PPG DECO POLSKA Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1524/08

December 26th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent office invalidated the right of protection for NIZOPOL R-152880 trade mark owned by Zakłady Farmaceutyczne “POLFA-ŁÓDŹ’ Spółka Akcyjna. The request was filed by Johnson and Johnson Company who owns NIZORAL R-57978 trade mark. The PPO held that both signs are similar and share at the beggining the same 4 letters NIZO.

The Voivodeship Administratve Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 November 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1524/08 invalidated the questioned decision and ordered its re-examination. Although the Court shared the view of the PPO that during the examination of the questioned word marks in the aural apect, the more attention should to be paid to the first letters and syllables, and a very small role of the endings of words should be recognized, citing J. Piotrowska, Renomowane znaki towarowe i ich ochrona (in English: Reputed trade marks and their protection), Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2001, p. 131, however, according to the VAC, the PPO did not consider at all the issues related to the degree of public attention. According to the VAC, even the ordinary and final recipient (and not only the professional) when during the purchase of products such as pharmaceuticals or cosmetic can be extremely careful in selecting the correct product because the product purchased is not the regular goods, but one that will (or may) have some consequences for his health. The recipient will also be a more likely with a similar purchase to seek and take into consideration the advice of an expert. A prudent consumer should pay particular attention to the name (and thus the mark) when purchased.

The PPO did not also made in this case, any assessment of other important factors affecting the risk of confusion, namely, did not address the issues related to the alleged occurrence in the course of trade any other similar signs/designations containing the prefix “nizo”. The PPO have to respond to arguments and the circumstances showed by the Polish company, since it is argued the legal doctrine, that the use of the same or similar trade mark by third parties could lead to a weakening of the impact of such sign, and thus – to reduce the risk of confusion, citing R. Skubisz, Prawo znaków towarowych. Komentarz (in English: Trade mark law. Commentary), Warszawa 1997, p. 91.

In this situation – according to the Court – it must be assumed that the PPO during the re-examination of the case should first consider the question of the similarity of the goods. The VAC noted that according to settled case-law, the assessment of the similarity between the goods or services should take into account all relevant factors relating to those goods or services. Those factors include, in particular, their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary, citing T‑420/03, El Corte Inglés, SA v. OHIM.

In the opinion of the Court when re-considering the issue again with regard to the risk of misleading consumers, the Patent Office will be obliged to consider how the risk of confusion is likely to affect the power of the effectiveness (common knowledge) of the opposed earlier mark, in the light of the model of the average consumer that was established in the Community case-law. In this situation the PPO should also consider the issue of the possible risk of confusion, taking into account the intened use of both signs.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 406/08

October 28th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The MIŚ company has operated on the Polish market since 1956 in the form of an “industrial plant”, but until 1978, it used the name “Wojewódzki Zwiazek Gminnych Spóldzielni Samopomoc Chlopska-Zaklad Wyrobów Cukierniczych Miś” in Oborniki Śląskie. The complex name was changed to “Spóldzielnia Pracy Produkcyjno Handlowa MIŚ” in 1978 and again to “Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIŚ” in 1992.

R-90583

Włodzimierz Miś and Jerzy Miś – “Bracia Miś” (Bear’s brothers) have started their activity in 1989. They use a single word “Miś” (bear) as their company name and produce confectionery since 1993. “Bracia Miś” have applied for the word-figurative trade mark “Mis” in 1992. The Polish Patent Office has granted the protection right in 1995 under the no. R-83022. The Company from Oborniki Slaskie received trade mark protection right for the figurative sign consisting of bear’s head in 1996 under the no. R-90583.

R-83022

Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIS filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection of “Bracia Miś” trade mark. The PPO agreed and invalidated the contested trade mark in 2001 for the first time. The case went for the appeal to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw which annuled the PPO’s decision. The Administrative court pointed that Polish Patent Office did not properly justified its decision and did not consider judgments of two civil courts that previously ruled in case of “Bracia Miś” and Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIŚ as regards similarity of both signs and the use of “Bracia Miś” trade mark as a company name (a short explanation: Polish civil courts decide trade mark infringement cases while administrative courts decide appeals and cassation complaints related to administrative procedure and cases before PPO).

Once again, the PPO invalidated “Bracia Miś” trade mark in 2007. The Office ruled that the registration should not be allowed because it violated personal rights of Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIŚ – the right to a company name – which enjoyed a long tradition and reputation. Again, the case went for an appeal to VAC. Trade mark attorney who was representing “Bracia Miś” presented arguments that their products are only sold in company’s owned shops and there is no risk of consumers confusion. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 22 October 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 921/07 did not follow such arguments so the case went to the Polish Supreme Administrative Court as cassation complaint. The SAC agreed with “Bracia Miś” and held that the PPO did not indicate on which evidences the annullement was based in its decision and that the PPO failed to comply with regulations provided in the Code of Administrative Procedure. The VAC by accepting PPO’s decision has failed to comply with administrative proceedings rules which which in consequence was the reason to invalidate VAC’s judgment.

The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 October 2008 case file II GSK 406/08 is final and binding. It means that the Voivodeship Court has to annul the Polish Patent Office’s decision from 2007 and order the PPO to reconsider the invalidation of “Bracia Mis” trade mark. See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2258/08“.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 262/08

June 17th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 April 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 262/08, published in LEX under the no. 512901, held that the interests of all market participants must also taken into account when examining the registrability of a trade mark. The grant of the right of protection for a trade mark cannot lead for the monopolization by one entrepreneur of signs that are in the public domain. This case concerned the examination proceedings of the word trade mark polbar Z-278236 that was applied for by Akademia Rolnicza from Lublin. The word “polbar” is used as the name of the hens’ breed.

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

June 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

IR-645346

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

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

Trae mark law, case II GSK 380/07

March 5th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office refused to recognize the right of protection for CHECK-UP IR-0595827 registered under the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks for Zabaione GmbH and used to designate the goods in class 25, such as clothing for men, women and children and bars for clothes. The PPO ruled that the questioned sign is similar to CHECK-IN IR-0552746 trade mark registered with an earlier priority from 19 June 2002, for Hohe-Modelle Maria Hohe GmbH & Co., intended for marking of the goods in Class 25 such as outerwear for ladies and children.

The PPO ruled that to fulfill the provisions of Article 132(2)(ii) of the IPL, it is necessary to accumulate of the several factors: the signs must be similar to each other, the goods for which trade marks are meant should be homogenous, and as the consequence of the similarity of the signs and the goods, there is a risk of confusion as to the origin of the goods covered by those trade marks.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 23 April 2007, casefile VI SA / Wa 145/07 dismissed the complaint filed by legal predecessor of Zabaione GmbH. In the opinion of the VAC, the Polish Patent Office correctly refused to recognize the right of protection for a trademark CHECK-UP, pointing to its similarity to CHECK-IN trade mark and the similarity of the goods in class 25, and acknowleded that it may lead to the risk of misleading the public. According to the Court, the PPO correctly assessed the similarity of signs, and rightly pointed out that the trade marks are similar to each other both visually and phonetically because of the first parts of the two signs. Both trade marks are composed of two elements, and have the same first part, “CHECK” and accordingly the suffix “UP” in the applicant’s character and the suffix “IN” in the opposed sign interconnected by a hyphen. According to the Court, the signs are also similar in the aural aspect – they are pronounced very similarly. Different suffixes are not sufficient to prove diversity of both signs. These are components are of secondary importance. The court shared the view of the PPO that the recipient pays more attention to the first elements of signs, and less to the endings, because visually the first letters and syllables attract the most attention and are better remembered. The average customer usually does not examine in detail all the elements of the trade mark, but it perceives a given sign as a general impression.

The VAC agreed with the applicant that the two signs have completely different meaning in English, however, the similarity of signs shall be always from the perspective of the average consumer. The knowledge of English in Polish society is not yet sufficiently widespread. For a person who does not speak English language these signs are fanciful.

The Court shared the opinion of the PPO that both signs are intended to designate similar goods in class 25 and the goods are complementary. According to the Court, a customer who knows goods under the brand CHECK-IN, may think the same company introduces a new range of clothing for men, women and children, branded with CHECK-UP trade mark. The Court emphasized the fact that Article 132(2)(ii) of the IPL uses the term “identical or similar goods”, i.e. the similarity of the goods is not identical as their identity. Similarity occurs in the case of goods of the same kind of similar purpose and conditions of sales. Clothes, for which both trade marks are deisgnated are undoubtedly similar goods regardless of their differences in assortment. The average customer can therefore assume that they are produced by the same manufacturer. An outerwear manufacturer of high quality and original clothes designed for specific audiences, could in fact release a new line of clothing of average standard intended for a wider audience, marking it with CHECK-UP trade mark.

Referring to the applicant’s argument that the two signs benefit from protection in Switzerland and Germany, the Court emphasized that protection of trademarks in each country and the guarantee that effective protection is not absolute. The registration under the Madrid Agreement does not mean that a trade mark is protected automatically in each Member State. The applicant is seeking trademark protection on the Polish territory, so Polish law is applicable to the assessment of the trade mark registrability. The Company decided to file a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 28 February 2008, case file II GSK 380/07 dismissed the cassation. The SAC noted that the Company has not provided any arguments concerning the erroneous interpretation of Article 132(2)(ii) of the IPL. It did not indicated whether there was the breach of any regulations on administrative proceedings. If there is no infringement of the proceedings, it can not be argued that there is a breach of substantive law, in this case, Article 132(2)(ii), just because the plaintiff thinks the facts are different. The SAC ruled that if the cassation complaint is based on allegation of improper application of a given provision of substantive law, the arguments included in such a complaint should explain why the accepted legal basis for settlement of the contested provision has no relation to the facts established, and what other provision the court should apply.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1470/07

October 30th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of MURBET R-155245 trade mark owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Wielobranżowe MURBET Andrzej Zaborski. The proceedings were initiated by the MURBET Gabrylewicz Spółka Jawna company from Ełk.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 17 October 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 1470/07 held that the registration of a trade mark which infringes personal or property rights of third parties is unacceptable, and in light of case-law, in case of conflict between the company name (the firm), and a trade mark that registered with the “worse priority”, the priority shall be given to the earlier right. However, the exclusive rights to the company name (the firm) is not absolute. Its limits are set by the territorial and substantive coverage, the actual activity of person using the names. Only within these limits there may be a collision between identical or similar company name (the firm) and trademark.

R-222381

The VAC held that because of the distinct areas of the business activity of the person entitled to the company name and the holder of the right of protection to MURBET R-155245 trade mark, there is no risk of leading their consumers to confusion as to the identity of such business or the owner of the later trade mark. The owner of the questioned trade mark does not use the reputation associated with the earlier (identical or similar ) company name (the firm), then it is difficult to find the collision of these two rights, and consequently a breach of an earlier right to the company name by the registration of the later trade mark. The judgment is not final. See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 400/08“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 269/06

October 6th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

By decision of 11 August 2005, the Patent Office refused to grant a right of protection for word-figurative “R-Profit” Z-234207 trade mark applied for by Raiffeisen Bank Polska S.A. for goods in Class 36 such as banking services for small and medium enterprises. The Patent Office concluded after examination proceedings that this sign may not be registered because it is similar to PROFIT R-87400 trade mark, registered for Bank Polska Kasa Opieki SA, with priority of 3 November 1993 for goods in Class 36 such as management of interest bearing money investments in zlotys. The PPO also stated that, in this case, the issue of services could not be challenged, since both signs are designed for the same services to a wide audience, i.e. banking services. The PPO ruled that both signs cannot exist simultaneously in trade without the risk of consumers confusions. In the opinion of the PPO there was no doubt that the trade marks are also similar phonetically and semantically.

Z-234207

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 May 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 542/06 dismissed the complaint filed by Raiffeisen Bank Polska S.A. and noted at the beggining that Article 315(1)(3) of the IPL, expresses the principle that the issue of the registrability of signs that were registered or applied for registration before 22 August 2001, is assessed on the basis of existing regulations. therefore the provisions of the Act of 31 January 1985 on trade marks are the basis for assessing the registrability of R-Profit trade mark, because it was applied for registration on 10 April 2001.

Article 315
1. Rights conferred in respect of inventions, utility models, ornamental designs, topographies of integrated circuits, trademarks and rationalisation projects, existing at the time of entry into force of this Law, shall remain effective. To these rights the previous provisions are applicable, unless the provisions of this Part stipulate otherwise.

2. Legal relationships established prior to the entry into force of this Law shall continue to be governed by the previous provisions.

3. Statutory requirements for the grant of a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration shall be assessed under the provisions effective at a date of filing of an application concerning an invention, a utility model, a trademark or topography of an integrated circuit with the Patent Office. However, the provision of Article 37(2) shall apply to patent and utility model applications pending at the date of entry into force of this Law.

In the opinion of the VAC that this case involved the same type of services. The Court agreed with the analysis of the list of services performed by the PPO that there exists homogenity of services between in both lists of goods. In the opinion of the Court, the PPO has properly analyzed the similarity of “R-Profit” and opposing “Profit” signs. Both signs should be compared in aural conceptual and phonetic aspects, bearing in mind that “R-Profit” is a word-figurative trade mark. According to the VAC, even though this case concenrs word and word-figurative trade marks, one may say that there exists graphic similarity, as “R-Profit” and “Profit” differ only by the letter “R” and the core of the two characters – “Profit” is identical. The VAC ruled that the argument that services in question have different distribution channels does not preclude the likelihood of confusion, because an average consumer may think that the service is derived from an entity that combines the organizational relationship and legal rights with the owner of “Profit” trade mark.

Raiffeisen Bank Polska S.A. filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 February 2007 case file II GSK 269/06 dissmised the case. The SAC held that the comparison of signs should be based on the general, overall impression, which compared trade marks have on the recipient, and thus if the dominant element in both signs are their common elements, there is a similarity between trade marks that is posing a risk of consumers confusion.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 296/06

September 30th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

By its decision of 15 July 2003, the Polish Patent Office has granted a right of protection for FEMISTEN R-146192 trade mark for goods in Class 5 such as pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical preparations. On 28 July 2004, the Patent Office received a notice of opposition, filed by Solvay Pharmaceuticals B.V. from Netherlands, and it based its oppsition on FEMOSTON IR-624469 trade mark also registered for goods in Class 5. The Dutch company argued that the FEMISTEN is confusingly similar to FEMOSTON both in the phonetic, and aural aspects, and both signs are meant to designate the same kind of goods. The owner of the registration requested the PPO to dismiss the case.

The PPO in its decision of 16 November 2005 dismissed the application for the invalidation of the right of protection for FEMISTEN trade mark. In support of the decision the PPO stated that in its opinion there is no similarity of the signs and it likely will not mislead consumers as to the origin of goods. Both signs were considered as a whole as fanciful. The component FEMI in FEMISTEN trade mark indicates that the product is designed for women. There was some similarity in structure and wording of these signs (the two characters have the same number of letters and syllables, and the difference comes down to differences of vowels in these assays), but in the assertion of the PPO it would not mislead the recipients as to the origin of the goods from a particular entrepreneur. FEMOSTON is a trade mark meant for designation of pharmaceutical preparations used in hormone therapy, which are bought only on prescription, so these goods are available to the customer through doctors and pharmacists. Products bearing FEMISTEN are the skin-care goods, available without a prescription and not associated with hormone therapy. The buyers of pharmaceutical products are adults, which, thoughtfully make their choice by paying attention.

Solvay filed a complaint. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 25 May 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 537/06 dissmied the complaint and ruled that the collected evidence made it clear, that the proprietor of FEMISTEN trade mark at the moment of filing a request for invalidation did not market the goods covered by the disputed mark, but according to the declaration of the holder, Glaxo intended to bring to the market skin care preparations in the form of ointments and gels available without prescription. The Court considered the findings of the Patent Office in this regard as correct. The legal doctrine and the case law established already the method of examining of the homogenity of goods. It should be assessed according to the type of the goods, purpose of the goods and the conditions of their sale, and the mere fact of belonging to a common class of goods is not a decisive argument for the recognition of the goods as belonging to the same kind. The Court ageed with the comparison of these signs that was made by the PPO and noted that the similarity of signs, as referred to in Article 9(1), point 1 of the TMA, is not an independent category, but it serves a purpose, namely the elimination by refusing to register the mark, which would under normal conditions of economic activity to deceive consumers as to the origin of goods. Evaluation of the similarity of the marks must be made at the same time from the perspective of the average consumer of the goods.

Solvay Pharmaceuticals B.V. Decided to file a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court i its judgment of 13 March 2007, case file II GSK 295/06 ruled that the issue of similarity of trade marks has both the factual and legal aspects, and that the administrative court can conduct its own assessment of the similarity criteria used by the Polish Patent Office. See “Trade mark law, case file II GSK 36/05“.

The SAC noted that according to settled case-law, the similarity of trade marks are resolved on the basis of risk of confusion as to the origin of goods. And the risk of confusion as to the origin of goods consists of similarity of goods and similarity of signs. See “Trade mark law, case file II SA 2778/01“.

Therefore, an essential element of the facts established for purposes of comparison of trade marks in terms of their similarity is to determine what goods bear these marks. Such a requirement does not occur when the same signs lack of similarities that may lead to a risk of confusion as to the origin of goods. This situation occurs in particular when the word trade marks compared in the visual and aural aspect show significant differences, so that mistakes are impossible for the consumer regardless of the way of purchasing terms and conditions of sale. The SAC noted that for unexplained reasons, it was adopted as the basis for comparisons of goods, by how they will be used, based only on arguments provided by Glaxo, where it was not disputed that when the decision was contested before the VAC, no commodity was marked with the questioned sign. It was also important to consider whether the observed similarity in the spelling of the two signs may lead to the risk of confusion. For these reasons, the SAC reversed the contested judgment and referred the case to the VAC for further re-examination.