Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: trade mark invalidation

Trade mark law, case Sp. 352/08

April 29th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Prywatne Biuro Podróży Sindbad Ryszard Wójcik from Opole, requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the word-figurative trade mark SINDBAD HOTELE R-172657 registered in Class 40 and 43 for services such as photographic film development and printing and accommodation and reservations, and owned by Przedsiębiorstwa Handlowo-Usługowego Sindbad s.c. Michał Ząbroń, Roman Mandyna from Kraków. Ryszard Wojcik is the holder of the word-figurative trade mark SINDBAD R-77988 registered with the earlier priority in Class 35 and 39 for services such as transporting of passengers and goods by car, organization of tourist trips, travel agencies and advertising agencies.

R-172657

The Adjudicative Board of the PPO in its decision of 18 April 2010 case no. Sp. 352/08 invalidated the right of protection. The PPO held that there exists similarity of the signs and services. As for services, the PPO said that accommodation and travel agency services are related. This decision is not final yet. A complaint can be brought to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1860/10

April 21st, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 20 December 2006, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark O’LEARY R-180416 applied for by Piotr Kasprzycki PPH Eveline Cosmetics from Lesznowola for goods in Class 03 such as skin, hair and body care products for children, women and men, mascaras, creams, lotions, shampoos, soaps, gels baths, creams and gels, cosmetics, perfumery, and cleansing tissues and goods in Class 05 such as medicinal cosmetics.

R-65340

French company L’OREAL Societe Anonyme filed a request for invalidation. L’Oreal owns the word trade mark L’OREAL R-42203 registered with the earlier priority of 5 May 1960 for goods in Class 03 such as perfumery and cosmetics, toilet soaps, lipsticks, products for oral care, hair coloring agents, shampoos. The Company also owns the word-figurative trade mark L’OREAL STUDIO LINE R-65340 registered with the priority of 24 November 1988 for goods in Class 03. The French company argued that its trade marks are well-known and reputed. It presented a survey of consumers in the years 2001-2003, which proved the knowledge of the brand and consumer trust in the products. L’OREAL was the brand that has won numerous awards. The company argued that some of the goods are identical other are similar and raised an argument that the trade mark application was made in bad faith. The company relied on the judgment of the French court, which forbade the company that was created by Piotr Kasprzycki in France, the violations of trade marks and company name of L’Oreal, by the use of the name O’LEARY. L’OREAL also claimed the company created by Mr Kasprzycki was fictitious becuase its capital was 1 euro.

R-151141

O’LEARY argued that its trade Mark Has Irish origins and the average consumer is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. O’LEARY admitted that L’Oreal is a strong and very distinguishable brand and the consumer who buys these cosmetics will not pay attention to the other cheaper products. O’LEARY noted that since the French court judgment has been appealed, so the case has not been finally decided. In its opinion, the proceedings in France is not relevant in the proceedings before the Polish Patent Office.

The Adjudicative Board of the PPO in its decision of 16 March 2010 case no. Sp. 251/08 invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark O’LEARY. The PPO ruled that O’LEARY is confusingly similar to L’OREAL. Piotr Kasprzycki PPH Eveline Cosmetics filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 April 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1860/10 agreed with the PPO and dismissed the case. The judgment is not final yet. The cassation complaint can be brought before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2180/10

April 19th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 March 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 2180/10 ruled that the word-figurative trade mark 60 R-156991 is not sufficiently distinctive in standard business transactions because it does not individualize the goods of the trade mark owner among the goods of the same type that originate from different companies.

R-156991

The Polish Patent Office properly assessed the consumers of goods such as crosswords publications, and considered this groups as very diverse. Its members are people of different ages and different levels of education. There was no reason to believe that such a broadly defined consumer will identify a specific numerical designation with a given publisher, not the number of crosswords included in the publication. This judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 67/10

April 14th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark 1001 R-157046 registered for goods in Class 16 such as posters, albums, almanacs, stationery, blocks, drawing blocks, brochures, magazines, charade magazines, prints, forms, newspapers, calendars, calendars with loose pages, filing cards, cards, card-notices, postcards, comics, books, crossword puzzles, stationery, stickers, notepads, covers, bookmarks, drawing kits, notebooks, and owned by Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o.o. The PPO ruled that this trade mark lacks distinctiveness. TECHNOPOL filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 September 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1164/09. Technopol filed a cassation complaint.

R-157046

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 February 2011 case file II GSK 67/10 dismissed it and ruled that a trade mark which lacks primary distinctiveness will acquire distinctiveness or secondary meaning through advertising, if it is used for so long that it will be associated not with the original descriptive content, but the source of its origin – a specific goods produced by a particular manufacturer. The practice of different publishers who used different numbers and numerals in tiles of magazines did not allow for 1001 to acquire secondary meaning.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 259/10

April 7th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

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

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

Trade mark law, case II GSK 91/10

April 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Biuro Miss Polonia Sp. z o.o. filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark “MISS POLONIA WORLD” R-152218 owned by MISS POLONIA A. Aldona Von Laübe from New Britain, USA. Biuro Miss Polonia argued that the registration infringes on its personal interests (the company name) and the Polish company operates on the marker since a long time as the organizer of the annual, national beauty pageant. The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right in question. Aldona Von Laübe filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 17 July 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 337/09. The American company filed a cassation complaint.

R-152218

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 February 2011 case file II GSK 91/10 dismissed it. The SAC ruled that there was no rational arguments that in case of existence of a trade mark similar to the company name, the infringement of personal interests and the rights to company name could take place only in cases when the entire trade mark consist of the company name. The marketing of goods bearing a trade mark that is a confusingly similar to the company name is also the threat to personal interests or property rights. The fact that the questioned trade mark in addition to the words “Miss” and “Polonia” (that were concurrent with the partial company name of the applicant) contained the word “World” did not deprive the applicant of the protection of the company name as a personal interests, because the designation “Miss Polonia” had sufficient distinctive characteristics that would allow for the identification of an applicant and help to distinguish it from other entities.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 650/10

March 1st, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 Demceber 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 650/10 acknowledged the rule that the infringement of the company name as a condition to invalidate the registration of a trade mark under the old Polish Trade Mark law is not forejudged by registration of an identical or similar mark by another company. The VAC repeated that the exclusive rights to the company name are not an absolute. The limits have the territorial and objective nature and they concern the actual actvity of an entity that is using the name in question. Only within these limits the collision between identical or similar company name and trademark may occur. So if the scope of business activities of an entitled to the company name and the holder of the registration of the trade mark differs, there is no risk of consumers confusion as to the identity of companies or for example, a proprietor of the later trade mark is not using the reputation associated with an earlier identical or similar company name, it’s hard to say that there is the collision of these two rights, and consequently an infringement of an earlier right to the company name. This judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1088/09

February 19th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

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

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

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1936/10

February 4th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office dismissed the opposition against the registration of the trademark TARGA R-189862 owned by the Polish company VALVEX S.A.. The request was filed by Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG. The German company based the opposition proceedings on the CTM TARA no. 827659.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 January 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1936/10 ruled that the risk of misleading the public as to the origin of goods or/and the manufacturer must be examined globally, taking into account all elements relevant. These elements include in particular: the degree of recognition of the earlier trade mark on the market, an association that may occur between that trade mark and the opposed trademark of another entrepreneur, the degree of similarity between the signs and goods and services. The Court agreed with the PPO that the goods covered by both trade marks were similar and of the same kind. These goods were directed mainly to professionals in the field of sanitary installations, construction or architectural design. The VAC found that these consumers were specialists with an above-average degree of product awareness, who purchased the products at issue in specialized points of retail or wholesale. With regard to the remaining consumers (i.e., non-professionals), the Court pointed out that the goods at issue were not likely to be bought impulsively. The Court found that TARGA and TARA were both simple, and easy to read, pronounce and remember. These signs are composed of four or five letters, and the first three letters ‘TAR’ and the last letter ‘A’ are identical. The trademark TARGA contains an additional letter ‘G’. Both marks are short, so the letter ‘G’ will be easily noticed and heard by consumers. The court found that the additional letter ‘G’ would have an impact on the perception of the marks. Where the trademarks concerned are short, one different letter is in general sufficient to exclude similarity.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 827/10

January 31st, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Czech entrepreneur Druchema Drużstvo pro Chemickou Vyrobu a Sluzby requested the Polish Patent Office for the invalidation of the right of protection for TEMPO R-104245 and TEMPO R-154752 trade marks registered for goods in Classes 02 and 03 such as wax paste for maintenance and renovation of car lacquer. Both trade marks are owned by INTER GLOBAL Sp. z o.o. Druchema argued that it owns TEMPO trade mark that was registered in the Czech Republic and INTER GLOBAL was for many years its sales representative in Poland and in this period the representative applied for on its own behalf and obtained trademark protection for TEMPO signs in Poland. The Polish and Czech company entered into an exclusive sales agreement, however, its provision did not include the powers to register TEMPO trade marks. INTER GLOBAL argued that it created and registered different trade marks. The PPO invalidated the rights of protection in its decisions of 5 October 2009 case files Sp. 448/05 and Sp. 449/05 . INTER GLOBAL filed a complaint against both decisions.

R-154752

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 827/10 dismissed the complaint and ruled that it was not necessary for the recognition of bad faith of the applicant for the right of protection for a trade mark, that the the contracting party has used a trade mark identical to a sign of its business partner during their commercial cooperation. It was sufficient that during the commercial cooperation the contracting party has used a trade mark that was very similar to the trademark invalidated.

R-104245

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 828/10 also dismissed the complaint and ruled that many years of cooperation between Polish and Czech entrepreneurs led to the fact that INTER GLOBAL had clear information about Druchema, and how it designates its products. For these reasons, by applying for the protection for the mark in question that was very similar to a trade mark used by Druchema and doing it without its consent and knowledge, INTER GLOBAL was clearly acting in bad faith. Both judgments are not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1345/10

January 7th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polska Agencja Fotograficzna Studio 69 filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection for STUDIO 69 R-182300 trade mark owned by Marcin Maculewicz from Kielce. PAF claimed that the phrase STUDIO 69 was widely known and used by PAF as its trade mark. PAF also argued that according to 15 years of its business practice one can successfully operate on the media market without reserving or registering a brand name, and STUDIO 69 is a common sign that is also used widely by many companies. At the same time PAF did not claim infringement of the company name and explained that different entrepreneurs use such a sign.

The Polish Patent Office ruled that it is the duty of the opposing party to prove that a given sign is well known and is associated with products coming from the opponent. This should be demonstrated at the filing date of an application for the registration of a trade mark. The PPO explained that the well known sign is characterized by two elements. The first one is related to the function of marking the origin of goods/services (the distinctive function). A sign must have this feature in order to be registered as a trade mark. The second element is the requirement that a trade mark has became commonly known as a result of the use. According to the Polish case law and legal doctrine, a well known sign should be recognized in most of the territory, by more than half of potential purchasers of the goods. The basic criteria for assessing the objective possibility to become a well known trade mark include: the period of time of trade mark use, the situation of goods on the market (quantity, availability, method and scope of distribution), advertising campaigns and the strength/distinctive character of a trade mark. The PPO examined the evidence presented and reminded that common knowledge is assessed in terms of knowledge among potential customers. The PPO ruled that PAF has not demonstrated that more than 50% of potential customers on the Polish territory is familiar with STUDIO 69 trade mark and decided to dismiss the opposition. PAF filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1345/10 dismissed the case. The Court ruled that the Administrative Court, as a rule, does not carry out hearing of evidence, because the examination of legality of an administrative decision is based on the evidence gathered in the proceeding before an administrative authority (in this case the PPO) issuing the contested decision. According to Polish legal commentators, in principle, there are three sources of trademark protection within the industrial property law: the grant of a right of protection for a trademark (in the form of an administrative decision issued by the PPO), the use of a trade mark and common knowledge of a sign. The Court cited W. Włodarczyk, The distinctive ability of a trade mark, Lublin 2001, p. 28. The VAC held that PAF did not prove that STUDIO 69 was a well known sign. The judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1072/10

January 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

NSE Products, Inc., the owner of the CTM CHOLESTIN no. 000447318 requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for CHOLESTERIN R-189581 trade mark owned by MEDICOFARMA Spółka z o.o. NSE claimed that both trade marks are similar which may cause the risk of consumers’ confusion, especially taking into account the fact that the goods are also confusingly similar (dietary supplements). These goods are purchased without a prescription, and often in places other than pharmacies. The PPO invalidated the right of protection and MEDICOFARMA filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 November 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1072/10 held that the provision the Polish Act on Industrial Property Law that prohibits the grant of the right of protection for a trademark that is identical or similar to a trademark for which a right of protection was granted or which has been applied for protection with an earlier priority date (provided that the latter is subsequently granted a right of protection) on behalf of another party for identical or similar goods, if a risk of misleading the public exists, in particular by evoking associations with the earlier mark, is intended to protect business transactions/economic turnover against the confusion as to the origin of goods. The registration of trade marks, by which there would be created the right, the scope of which at least partially overlaps with the scope of the registration with an earlier priority was unacceptable for the Court. The judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 785/10

January 4th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Unilever N.V., the owner of the trade mark SOLERO IR-0622723 and the word-figurative trade mark SOLERO IR-0628636, has requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the trade mark SOLEY R-129356 owned by Maria Ziębińska, Stanisław Ziębiński “ICE MASTRY” sp. j. from Czaniec. Unilever claimed that the questioned sign is similar to its earlier registered well-known trade marks and that the Polish company acted in bad faith while applying for the right of protection because in 1997-2001, Unilever and ICE MASTRY were involved in two civil suits (case files V GC 252/97 and V GC 217/98) that have ended in a settlement in which the Polish company commited to discontinue use of the signs SOLER, Soller and SOLLEI. The PPO invalidated the right of protection. ICE MASTRY filed a complaint against this decision.

IR-0628636

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 785/10 held that the date of application for registration under Article 11 of the TMA (these provisions still apply in cases where the trade mark has been applied for registration when the old Act was in force) determines the priority of the right of protection associated with the applied sign (prior tempore potior jure). Thus, by this date all subjective and objective issues related to the right applied for protection must also be assessed, in particular,and whether the applicant has the right to the sign.

Article 11.
Subject to Article 12, priority for obtaining the right deriving from registration of a trademark shall be determined on the basis of its regular filing for registration with the Patent Office.

The Court also noted that the TMA, as well as the Industrial Property Law does not include a provision that would regulate differently the question of the trade mark application, in relation to its subjective and objective elements and that would take into account as authoritative another, later, point in time. Moreover,the adoption at of a later date to assess the qualifications of the applicant, not only would provide an option for revalidation of trade mark applications that were filed in contradiction with the law, or principles of social coexistence (in bad faith), but may also violate other laws. The filing date of an application for the registration of a trade mark should be taken into account when assessing whether the applicant has acted in bad faith, not the date of trade mark registration. The judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 601/10

December 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company Producent Okien i Drzwi z PVC “OKLAND” Joanna Wilk i Wojciech Wilk Spółka Jawna from Kostomłoty Pierwsze filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for a word-figurative trade mark Okland R-154904 owned by OKLAND Spółka z o.o. from Rokitki, in regard to the goods in Class 19, wooden windows. The company from Kostomłoty Pierwsze claimed it operates since 1 June 1997. Its business activities include the production of windows and doors of PVC in the four southern voivodeships. The company argued that the simultaneous use of the OKLAND sign in its company name and as a trade mark registered for a different entrepreneur may increase the risk of misleading the public, which includes in particular the risk of association between signs. The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection. Okland from Rokitki filed a complaint against this decision.

R-154904

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 31 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 601/10 held that the registration of a trade mark that is identical or similar to a company name of another entrepreneur does not determine, however the infringement of the rights to the company name (the firm). The exclusive rights to the company name are not absolute. The limits of these rights are set by the coverage (territorial and objective) of the actual activity of a given company. The collision between identical or similar signs i.e. a company name and a trademark, may occur only within these limits. The judgment is not yet final.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 849/09

December 8th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2005 the Polish Patent Office registered “MASTER COOK JAPART” R-164044 trade mark for Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe “JAPART” Zakład Pracy Chronionej from Panki. Podravka Prehrambena Industrija form Koprivnica, Croatia, the owner of “PODRAVKA VEGETA” R-138057 trade mark gave reasoned notice of opposition to the final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection.

R-138057

The PPO in its decision of 13 June 2008 case file Sp. 523/06 ruled that “PODRAVKA VEGETA” is the reputed trade mark although Podravka Prehrambena also supplied very worthless evidence materials. However, the PPO agreed with the owner that its trade mark was introduced on the Polish market in 1994 which was properly supported by documents issued on 11 October 1994 by the company’s marketing department. From this date the reputation of the trade mark could have been created and the existence of reputation is established before the date of application for the trade mark. In case of “MASTER COOK JAPART” it was before 3 April 2002. Therefore, the PPO invalidated the right of protection. Japart filed a complaint.

R-164044

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 22 May 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2147/08 dismissed it. The VAC came to the conclusion that Japart used a specific, multi-element composition of a reputed mark. The Court held that the likelihood of obtaining unfair advantage from the reputed trade mark is the obstacle that justifies the refusal to grant an exclusive right to sign that is identical or similar to the earlier a famous mark. It was therefore sufficient to assume that the applicant could use investments and financial efforts, which have previously been made by the owner of earlier trade mark to build an attractive image of the mark and attract customers. Japart filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 October 2010 case file II GSK 849/09 agreed with the VAC and dismissed the case. See also “Unfair competition, case I ACa 1270/10“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 779/09

December 1st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 121/09“. HOUSE Spółka z o.o filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 September 2010 case file II GSK 779/09 dismissed the case. The Court agreed with the VAC that ICT had the status of “owner” of the trade mark within the meaning of Article 161 of the IPL in connection with Article 6 septies of the Paris Convention although ICT at the date of the application of the questioned trade mark, i.e. on 11 March 1994, was not entitled under Article 161 of the IPL to XL XAVIER LAURENT IR-763083 trade mark, since the registration has been granted on 23 September 1999, and the protection of international registration lasts until 10 July 2001.

IR-763083

The SAC ruled that the provisions of Article 8(1) of the TMA concerns the substantive conditions of registration of the mark (it is not allowed to register a sign, which is contrary to the law or the rules of social coexistence) and it was referred to in Article 29 of TMA as a basis for invalidation of the registration of the trade mark, if the conditions provided in Article 8(1) were met. However, Article 161(1) and (2) of the IPL concerns only a request (claim) for invalidation of the right of protection.

Article 161
1. To the extent as follows from an international agreement, where a trademark has been applied for protection by and on behalf of, or the right of protection has been granted for, an agent or a representative of the person enjoying the exclusive right to use that trademark in another country, that person may, if the agent or representative acted without that person’s consent, demand that the protection granting proceeding be discontinued or the right of protection revoked. He may also demand that the right of protection be granted on his behalf, or the right already granted transferred to him.
2. The right may not be demanded to be revoked or transferred, where the entitled person referred to in paragraph (1) has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of the registered trademark while being aware of such use.

It was obvious for the Court that if the conditions mentioned in the Article 161(2) of the IPL were met, then there is no need to study the substantive grounds for invalidation of the registration, as referred to in Article 8(1) in connection with Article 29 of the TMA. It is in accordance with Article 161(2) of the IPL that the request for the invalidation or transfer of rights cannot occur if, for a period of five consecutive years, the holder referred to in paragraph 1, being aware of such use, did not object to the use of a registered trade mark.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 299/10

November 15th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 14 March 2007, the Polish Patent Office registered the word-figurative trade mark Oxford Wielka Historia Świata R-187352 for goods in Class 16 such as books and periodicals. The Polish company “Oxford Educational” sp. z o.o. from Słupsk was the applicant and the holder of the right of protection. The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (Oxford University Press) filed a request for invalidation. The OUP argued that it is obvious to everyone that Oxford is a place uniquely associated by the public around the world with the home of a famous university. Therefore, marking the goods with a signs associated with Oxford – the seat of the famous University of Oxford – may mislead the public as to the true geographical origin of products. The OUP also pointed out that, with priority from 24 April 1995, is entitled to the rights of protection to three trade marks sharing the same verbal element, OXFORD, R-103399, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS R-102351 and OXFORD ENGLISH R-102350.

R-187352

The Polish company argued that the trade mark at issue does not refer to a geographical name of Oxford town, but to holder’s company name, and therefore it is not misleading. Oxford Educational also argued that the disputed sign was created in collaboration with an English company. The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection. The PPO ruled that the conflicting trade marks are registered for identical goods, therefore, there is a risk of misleading the public as to their origin. Oxford Educational filed a complaint against this decision.

R-102350

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 299/10 dismissed the complaint. The Court held that in case of a collision between a company name (the firm) and a trade mark that was registered with the “worse priority,” the priority shall be given to the right that was previously-formed. The mere registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to another company’s name (firm) does not provide even a breach of the rights to the company. However, the right to the company name would be infringed if the registration of a conflicting trade mark interferes with the exercise of this right. This distortion is misleading as to the identity of actors (acting under the company name and usign the sign) and therefore may jeopardize the company name. In case of a known, reputable, i.e. “strong” trade mark it means that the consumer awareness is associated with the recognized high-quality of products, derived from the manufacturer with high reputation. Thus, the registration of the questioned trade, and more – its application was made with a clear intention to benefit from the reputation of the OXFORD trade mark.

Trade mark law, case no. Sp. 133/08

November 10th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Wyborowa S.A. from Poznań filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark WYBORNA ŻYTNIA EXCELLENT RYE VODKA BLENDED R-172468 and word-figurative trade mark WYBORNA EXCELLENT VODKA R-172469, both applied for on 1 October 2002, for goods in Class 33 such as alcoholic beverages. The right of protection was granted to PPS Polmos S.A. Warszawa. Wyborowa S.A. argued that there is a confusing similarity to the WÓDKA WYBOROWA R-151215 trade mark and that the application of the both signs was made in bad faith.

R-151215

Wyborowa S.A. relied on an agreement regarding the division of trade marks that were registered for the stated owned Polmos company before socio-economic transformations that have occurred in Poland after 1989. Both WYBORNA R-64663 and WYBORNA WÓDKA R-64855 trade marks were transferred to PPS Polmos S.A. Warszawa.

R-64855

These trade marks received protection in the 90′s, and in 2003, Wyborowa S.A. requested the PPO to decide on the lapse of the right of protection. At the first stage, the PPO dismisses the case due to the lack of legitimate interests of Wyborowa S.A. The Company filed a complaint against this decision and the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 July 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 704/06 annulled the contested decisions and ruled them unenforceable. The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its final decisions of 28 April 2008 case number Sp. 285/06 and Sp. 543/06 decided on the lapse of the protection.

R-64663

PPS Polmos Warszawa applied again for the right of protection for very similar labels, hence Wyborowa S.A. filed a notice of opposition (dismissed by the PPO) and the request for invalidation,

R-172468

The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 8 October 2010 case no. Sp. 133/08 invalidated both questioned trade marks. The PPO held that the application of those trade marks was made in bad faith, which was intended to circumvent the law. This was because these signs have been applied for during the proceedings of on the lapse of the above trade marks R-64663 and R-64855.

R-172469

The PPO ruled that Polmos Warszawa still wants to continue to maintain a monopoly and block other entrepreneurs to the use of the Wyborna sign. This is kind of a precedent decision, because the PPO probably for first time in its case-law considered that the re-application for similar signs is contrary to the principles of merchant’s honesty, as a matter of acting in bad faith. The decision is not final yet.

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 347/10

October 29th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 9 July 2005, the Polish Patent Office registered word-figurative trade mark “PERŁY I ŁOTRY SHANGHAJU” R-164275 for Grzegorz Majewski “SINONIS” from Katowice. Michał Gramatyka, Wojciech Harmansa, Adam Saczka and Sławomir Olko filed a request for the invalidation of the right of protection. They claimed that they were members of the music band “PERŁY I ŁOTRY SHANGHAJU”, the band’s name is a common right and therefore the registration of this name as a trademark by Grzegorz Majewski violated the rights of other band members. The applicants alleged that Majewski filed for the registration at a time when he was not an active member of the band and he also knew that “PERŁY I ŁOTRY SHANGHAJU” continues its operation, accordingly he acted in bad faith. Bad faith is also confirmed by the fact that based on the granted right of protection for the trade mark in question, Majewski demanded the cessation of business activity of the other band members. The sign in question is a word-figurative trade mark and similarities that exist may mislead the public with “PERŁY I ŁOTRY” R-194932 trade mark registered for Firma Usługowo-Handlowa HARPEL II Wojciech Harmansa. See also “Trade mark law, case Sp. 211/08“.

R-164275

The Polish Patent Office dismissed the request and concluded that there was no reason to believe that the grant of protection to the trade mark at issue violated the personal rights of applicants if a civil court’s judgment submitted during the invalidation proceedings included a statement that they are not entitled to such a personal right/interest to the band name. The applicants filed a complaint against this decision.

R-194932

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 24 August 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 347/10 annulled the contested decision and ruled it unenforceable. The VAC held that there was a breach of procedural law. The Court held that the PPO, in fact, did not properly examine the request for invalidation. The PPO based its findings only on certain statements issued in the judgment of the Apellate Court in Katowice, and draw more far-reaching conclusions. And so, from the finding of the Appellate Court that plaintiffs have not demonstrated the fact that they are entitled to the name of the band “Perły i Łotry Szanghaju”, the PPO reached a conclusion that the applicants shall have no personal or property rights, and then ruled the argument of acting in bad faith as unfounded. This jugdgment is not final.