Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: trade mark opposition

Trade mark law, case II GSK 839/10

January 17th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

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

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

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 October 2011 case file II GSK 839/10 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1236/11

December 6th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

LEK, tovarna farmacevtskih in kemicnih izdelkov filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection for the word trade mark KETOGEL R-190416 registered for Polpharma S.A. for goods such as pharmaceuticals. LEK argued that KETOGEL is similar to its word trade mark KETONAL. The PPO dismissed the opposition, and LEK filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 September 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1236/11 dismissed it. The court noted that in case of the assesment of similarities between trade marks, the number of syllables, their sound and touch have the importance in deciding on phonetic similarity. Visual similarity is assessed in terms of number of words or letters in general, the number of words or letters of the same type, their shape, layout and color. Consequently, a sign containing an altered distinctive element, even if there is some resemblance to other parts, will not be similar. The Court took into account the specificity of the pharmaceutical market, and excluded the likelihood of confusion in this case.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 396/11

November 8th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

EAST SEA POLAND Spółka z o.o. filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark BIEN DÔNG R-204010 registered for services in Classes 36, 39 and 43, and owned by AEROCENTER TRAVEL Trinh Huy Ha.

R-204010

EAST SEA claimed that this mark is descriptive, because in the translation from Vietnamese to Polish language, it is the name of the South China Sea – Biển Đông. This name is the official designation of the geographic area used in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and as such it should remain free to use on the market. The company argued that this trade mark may lead to consumers’ confusion, in particular those of Vietnamese nationality, as to the nature or characteristics of services provided by the owner, because the sign in its content relates to the maritime area, which is associated with maritime transport, and not to the services that it was registered for. EAST SEA argued that the Bien Dong designation may be misleading as to the place where services are provided, as the owner provides its services in Poland and not in Vietnam. It is worth mentioning that EAST SEA applied for three trade marks that include BIEN DONG words.

Z-290648

AEROCENTER TRAVEL argued that the Bien Dong is strictly abstract expression for the average Pole who doesn’t know what it means in Vietnamese. The Company disagreed, that this is false or fraudulently marked geographical origin of their services, since none of the customers going to the office in Warsaw would expect it to be in Vietnam at the South China Sea.

The Polish Patent Office dismissed the opposition and EAST SEA POLAND decided to file a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 May 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 396/11 dismissed it and held that the Polish Industrial Property Law – in principle – does not preclude the registration in Poland as a national trade mark, the word that is taken from the language of another country in which language this word is devoid of distinctive character or it is descriptive for the goods or services for which the registration was sought, unless recipients/consumers in the State in which registration is sought, would be able to read the meaning of this word.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 617/11

October 24th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 17 October 2007, the Polish Patent Office registered the word trade mark Auto-dap R-197829 for Dariusz Chudobiński from Łódź. Andrzej Teodorczyk who owns Auto Serwis Dap, that is located in Pabianice town, filed a notice of opposition.

Mr Teodorczyk claimed that Mr Chudobiński acted in bad faith. He also noted that the sign in question was widely known in Pabianice and it was associated with the automotive garage operated by him under the name “AUTO DAP”. The garage was located in the immediate vicinity of the garage owned by Mr Chudobiński. Mr Teodorczy argued that the DAP company was founded by him in 1984, and its designation is an abbreviation of three names. Mr Teodorczyk pointed out that he had shares in the company AUTO-DAP sp. z o.o., that was also founded by Mr Chudobiński and his wife, however, he never transferred the right to the AUTO DAP sign.

The PPO dismissed the opposition and ruled that the Company AUTO-DAP sp. z o.o. has the property right to its company name, and Mr Chdobiński received a proper authorization to file for a trade mark Auto-dap for his own. The PPO ruled that a short abbreviation DAP, as an abstract term, can not be attributed to specific individuals, as their personal interest due to the order of letters in this expression. These letters can have different meanings for the average customer in perception of this determination. The Patent Office did not agree that Auto-dap trade maw was filed in bad faith. Mr Chudobiński submitted evidence documents that he used the name DAP in his business. Mr Teodorczyk, as one of the founders of the AUTO-DAP company, has agreed (and did not oppose) the use of the company’s name (firm) in this way. He used the same DAP designation in his business activities as an individual and in a company which shares has has sold to the owner of the registered trade mark. Mr Chudobiński filed a trade mark application according to the authorization and undertook the obligation to transfer the disputed trade mark on the company, for each request. It was therefore an application that has been made in good faith – the mark was used by the company for nearly 6 years – and the authorization for its registration by Mr Chudobiński did not violate the provisions of the Articles of Association. Mr Teodorczyk filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 June 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 617/11 dismissed it. The Court ruled that Mr Teodorczyk did not prove that Mr Chudobiński wanted to block business activities of Mr Teodorczyk for the reason that he has registered the disputed mark. The VAC noted also that Polish law provides that a right of protection will not be granted for a trade mark in respect of identical or similar goods, if the trade mark is identical or similar to a trade mark which, before the date according to which priority to obtain a right of protection is determined, has been well-known and used as a trade mark in respect of the goods of another party. However, this trade mark has to be well-known on the whole territory of the Republic of Poland or on a substantial part of it. The recognition and knowledge of the trade mark only in less than a significant part of the Polish territory, even if it is intense, does not create the right to a well-known trade mark. Knowledge of the trade mark in one city and its surroundings, even if it’s a large one, is not enough for the sign to be regarded as a well-known trade mark.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 746/10

September 2nd, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of the story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1988/09“. Kraft Foods Polska filed a cassation complaint.

R-91506

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 July 2011 case file II GSK 746/10 dismissed the complaint and held that the reputation of the trade mark and homogenity goods bearing the signs at issue – even if they could be taken into account while assessing the likelihood of confusion – cannot challenge the established view that there is the lack of similarity between these trade marks. The Court decided that trade marks that were subject to the opposition proceedings do not contain a common element being the same surname, because the meaning of the POLO word in these trade marks is different.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 56/10

March 25th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office registered the word trade mark TRIMEGAL R-177593 for Farmaceutyczna Spółdzielnia Pracy GALENA for goods in Class 5 such as pharmaceutical preparations. NOVARTIS AG filed a notice of opposition. The Swiss company claimed TRIMEGAL is similar to its trade mark TRILEPTAL IR-0560245 registered for goods in Class 5 such as pharmaceuticals. The PPO dismissed it. Novartis decided to file a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 August 2009 case file akt VI SA/Wa 581/09 dismissed it, and NOVARTIS filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 January 2011 case file II GSK 56/10 held that in the case of the final recipients of pharmaceuticlas that are labeled with TRIMEGAL or TRILEPTAL trade marks it is hard to tell about the existence of likelihood/risk of confusion. The Court noted that it should be remembered that these signs are used for the determination of drugs that are used for different illnesses such as heart disease and epilepsy. Patients who are suffering from such illnesses are deemed according to the SAC as the “aware consumers” of their prescription drugs. Moreover, the so-called “post-sale risk of confusion” can be considered only when the patient with epilepsy, also suffers from heart disease, because only then in his medicine cabinet at home can be found both drugs bearing this two marks in question. The differences between both marks are sufficient to exclude any risk of confusion and to ensure the existence of the two signs on the market without any collision. Therefore, the view that TRIMEGAL is similar to TRILEPTAL in a way that excludes the possibility of distinguishing this two signs, in fact, would limit the possibility to use other trademarks with the informational prefix TRI- (triple).

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2168/10

March 16th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Red Bull GmbH filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to the “red dragon” trade mark R-179732 registered for DODONI Roman Górzyński, Marek Górzyński, Marcin Górzyński sp.j for goods in Class 32 such as mineral waters and non-alcoholic beverages. Red Bull claimed that “red dragon” is similar to its RED BULL R-207549, RED BULL ENERGY DRINK IR-0715531 and the CTM RED. Red Bull based its opposition on the reputation of these trade marks. The PPO dismissed the opposition and ruled that the opposed trade marks, despite the identical word element “red”, are different at all levels of perception, i.e., aural, verbal and conceptual, so that they produce a completely different impression on the average customer. These signs also have other verbal elements and the word “red” is present in other trade marks registered for goods in Class 32. In view of significant differences between opposed trade marks that excluded the risk of confusion as to the origin of the goods, the PPO decided that the reputation of Red Bull’s trade marks enjoyed on the Polish market is not relevant for the assessment of the risk of consumers confusion. Red Bull filed a complaint to the administrative court.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 December 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2168/10 dismissed the complaint. The court agreed with the PPO that the consumer who does not speak English will perceive RED BULL and RED BULL ENERGY DRINK as fanciful trade marks, and “red dragon” composed in part with the fanciful word “red” and in part of the Polish word of some specific meaning (Dragoon – mounted infantry or as a tall, stout, vigorous, sprawling woman) will be perceived differently. The court held that since the opposed trade marks are not similar, therefore the registration of “red dragon” R-179732 will not bring unfair advantage to DODONI or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of Red Bull’s trademarks.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1056/10

January 18th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

This case concerned the opposition proceedings against the decision on grant of the right of protection for NATURTEA R-191045 trade mark, owned by the Polish company ZAS-POL Sp. z o.o., and registered for goods in Class 30 such as tea, fruit teas, black, green, red, flavored tea. The opponent argued that NATURTEA is not sufficiently distinctive, because it is a descriptive term that indicates only the type of product – tea. The Polish Patent Office dismissed the case and ruled that such a trade mark, as a combination of two words is a fanciful sign and does not indicate characteristics of the marked goods. The opponent decided to file a complaint against this decision. According to ZAS-POL, the law firm that was the applicant in this case, had no legal interest (locus standi) in the invalidation of the right protection.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 30 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1056/10 annulled the questioned decision and set the case back for reconsideration. The Court ruled that the PPO completely ignored evidence submitted by the opponent as to the existence of the term “natural tea” in the market, and in fact, the PPO relied solely on the arguments provided by the trade mark owner. It was an example of violation of the principle that requires the public administration body to comprehensively collect and examine all evidential material.

The VAC reminded also that legal interest is not required to be proven only in case of oppositions filed according to Article 246 of the Polish Industry Property Law, where any person may give reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration, but only within six months from the publication in “Wiadomości Urzędu Patentowego” (the official journal of the Polish Patent Office) of the mention of the grant of a title of protection, and justifying at the same time the existence of the circumstances causing the invalidation of such right. The Court noted that it is the only example of the so-called actio popularis – a legal remedy that was introduced to the Polish Industrial Property Law because of the importance of public interest. This action is available to any person with the capacity to be a party in the administrative proceedings, even if such person is not directly interested in the matter. This judgment is not final yet.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 258/07

December 13th, 2010, Marta Skrobot

Aveda Corporation from Minneapolis, filed an opposition to avea R-151914 trade mark owned by INTERSILESIA MCBRIDE POLSKA Sp. z o.o. from Strzelce Opolskie registered for goods in Class 03. Aveda Corporation argued that avea trade mark is similar to its earlier AVEDA R-131741 trade mark. The Polish Patent Office has dismissed the opposition arguing that although the cosmetics in class 03 are goods for everyday use, the consumers pay special attention before their purchase, they check the ingredients of these products and are often testing them. Moreover avea trade mark is a word-figurative mark so it is protected as a whole.

Aveda Corporation filed complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court, in its judgment of 23 February 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 2048/06 dismissed the case. The Court held, that there is no risk of misleading the potential consumers although the trade marks AVEA and AVEDA are intended for marking the same goods, namely cosmetic products in class 03. Moreover the Court has agreed with the PPO, that the overall impression that trade mark exerts on the potential consumer is the most important factor. Although both trademarks differ from each other only in one letter, the figurative element in avea trade mark has crucial meaning.

Aveda Corporation filed a cassation complaint against this decision. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 December 2007 case file II GSK 258/07 held, that the Voivodeship Court could have agreed with the Polish Patent Office that the fact that both trade marks consist of the same element “ave” does not have to mislead the potential consumer when the letter “d” in the middle of the trade mark AVEDA this influences different perception of the trade mark. Although it was argued that the overall impression of the word-figurative trade marks in which the dominant element is a word, depends generally on the number of letters and the structure of the word.

The Supreme Administrative Court held, that the average consumer perceives the trade mark as a whole and does not analyze its particular elements. Therefore small differences between the trade marks are not sufficient to exclude the risk of visual similarity, especially when the trademarks have the common structure. In this particular case, it was considered that without analyzing the details of AVEDA and avea trade marks, the average consumer would notice the differences between both trade marks.

In answer to request of the plaintiff to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, stating that currently in force, test of assessment of risk to mislead a consumer and associating of trade marks on the basis on the art. 4 paragraph 1 point b), art. 5 paragraph 1 point 5 of Directive still raise concerns and in consequence there are discrepancies in the judgments of courts and Polish Patent Office, based on the judgments of OHIM, the Supreme Court held, that question formulated in this way did not meet criteria of Article 187 § 1 of Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, according to which if, during cognisantion of the cassation appeal, there would appear a legal issue, that will raise doubts, the Supreme Administrative Court may postpone the proceedings and introduce this issue to the Composition of seven judges of this Court for deciding.

Regarding the following question of plaintiff to the Court of Justice of European Union i.e. whether increased level of attention of the average consumer can be admitted regarding the goods of common use, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the answer to this question was not of vital importance to this matter, because even lack of higher level of attention of the average purchaser of cosmetics did not affect the assessment that in the subject case, during the assessment of the opposite trade marks there was no risk of misleading the potential consumers.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 765/09

October 18th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 September 2010 case file II GSK 765/09 held that the view that the content and scope of rights as referred to in Article 153 of the IPL were an obstacle to a possible objection by the entities, which do not have rights, which they claim to protect, does not deserve the acceptance.

Article 153
1. The right of protection shall confer the exclusive right to use the trademark for profit or for professional purposes throughout the territory of the Republic of Poland.

2. The term of the right of protection shall be 10 years counted from the date of filing of a trademark application with the Patent Office.

3. The term of protection may, at the request of the right holder, be extended for subsequent ten-year periods in respect of all or of a part of the goods.

4. The request referred to in paragraph (3) shall be submitted before the expiration of a running protection period, however not earlier than one year before the expiration thereof. The request shall be submitted together with the payment of a due protection fee.

5. The request referred to in paragraph (3) may also be submitted, against payment of an additional fee, within six months after the expiration of a protection period. The said time limit shall be non-restorable.

6. The Patent Office shall make a decision on refusal to extend the term of protection for a trademark, where the request has been submitted after the expiration of the time limit referred to in paragraph (5) or the due fees referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) have not been paid.

The legislature thus entails exclusive rights to the use of the trade mark for the profit or professional purposes and filing the opposition is not a form of use of the mark as shown above. The same conclusions may be reached while interpreting the provisions included in Article 296(2) of the IPL, in which the legislature combines the scope of trademark protection in the form of civil claims with the use of signs in business, while the opposition is not an action in the context of economic activity.

Article 296
2. Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(i) a trademark identical to a trademark registered in respect of identical goods,
(ii) a trademark identical or similar to a trademark registered in respect of identical or similar goods, if a likelihood of misleading the public, including in particular a risk of associating the trademark with a registered trademark, exists;
(iii) a trademark identical or similar to a renown trademark registered for any kind of goods, if such use without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the user or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.

Given those conditions, the exclusive rights of trademark protection does not cover the monopoly beyond the boundaries of economic activity or, in other words, use of the mark for the profit or professional purposes. The opposition remains outside the so-defined borders. This case concerned LORD R-88669 trade mark owned by REKORD S.A.

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 1601/08

January 28th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On July 4, 2002 Polish company Aldo sp. z o.o. applied for the right of protection for word-figurative mark ALDO S Z-252456 in classes 6, 19, 35, 37. The services indicated to operating a store and wholesalers with building materials. In 2005, The Polish Patent Office has issued a favourable decision and registered the submitted mark R-169096.

R-169096

German company Aldi Einkauf GmbH has opposed the registration. The opponent based its claims on two registrations. However, only the second of the presented trade marks ALDI R-173352 covered the contested class. This sign was also registered later in 2006 (the trade mark application was filled on June 11, 2002). After finding the opposition justified the The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office transformed it into the motion to cancel trade mark rights.

However, after parties submitted additional observations and after hearing oral arguments, The Board found that Aldi just started its business on the Polish market and does not offer or sell building materials so far. Aldo’s representative argued that the contested sign differs because of its figurative elements and due to small amount of letters and its ending there is no verbal similarity. Another argument presented that Aldo was using its sign since 1995 and there was no Aldi’s presence on the Polish market at this time. It was also noted that goods and services are aimed at the careful consumer so there is no risk in the association of the origin of such goods. Therefore, the PPO rejected the ALDI’s request in its decision of 26 February 2008 case act signature Sp.148/07. The PPO noted that contested wholesales services are alike but goods sold by Aldo are being offered in special shops where Aldi’s products are available in hipermarkets. The Board also held that both marks are not similar because they differ visually and they sound differently.

The German company filed a complain before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. In its complaint Aldi Einkauf still claimed that the disputed trade mark may lead to association with its brand. The German company alleged that the PPO wrongly assessed similarities. Aldi’s representative argued that the verbal aspect has greater importance in word-figurative trade marks. The letter “S” is separated from the word Aldo. Therefore, this expression will be perceived by the public as a dominant. However, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 December 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1601/08 dismissed Aldi’s complaint. The VAC held that PPO provided a proper and complete assessment of the disputed signs. The Adjudicative Board compared them globally, and also referred to the verbal elements. The difference of even a single letter is a sufficient factor to distinguish these signs, in visual, phonetic and aural perspective — said judge Ewa Marcinkowska, (the rapporteur). The judgment is not final yet. The cassation complaint may be filed before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 251/08

January 18th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative court in its judgment of 24 June 2008 case file II GSK 251/08 ruled that due to the fact that the trade mark MILKA that was invoked against the trade mark MIKLA R-148766 registered for goods in Classes 12 and 30, is a word trade mark, its use can manifest itself in a way that was chosen by the owner, which means that the holder may impose it on goods but not in any contradiction of the conditions afforded by the right of protection. The trade mark holder may, therefore, by marking the goods for which the sign received protection, to use a word trade mark by incorporating it in other registered trade mark, or to join it with the elements known and belonging to other sign.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 538/07

December 20th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 3 March 2005, the Polish company “KILARGO” Spólka z o.o. from Chechlo I applied for the word-figurative trade mark Sweetlips for goods in class 30 such as ice creams. The Polish Patent Office has granted the right for protection on 18 September 2006. The registration was opposed by Lidl Stiftung & Co.KG. The company claimed that Kilargo’s registration was granted in violation of article 132(2)(ii) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.

A right of protection for a trademark shall not be granted, if the trademark:
… 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

Lidl Stiftung has provided evidences of an earlier trade mark – SWEETKIDS – which was applied for on 7 May 2004, in class 30 for goods such as chocolate and confectionery products, in particular chocolate bars, chocolate candies, candies. On 22 December 2006, the PPO has issued a decision on granting the right or protection to SWEETKIDS R-185112 trade mark.

R-178936

The Polish Patent Office in its decision of 22 October 2008 case Sp. 538/07 did not find similarities between disputed trademarks, or goods they are intended to mark, since ice creams are specific products to sweets. In PPO’s view the “sweet” part is to be found in many trade marks that have been already registered and therefore it has hardly distinctive capabilities. The decision is final.

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

June 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

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.