Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: look-alikes

Trade mark law, case I ACa 1268/12

July 4th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

Wytwórcza Spółdzielnia Pracy SPOŁEM (WSP SPOŁEM) from Kielce (the capital city of the Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship) sued ROLESKI Sp. J. for the infringement of word and figurative trade marks R-197616, R-170401, R-123588 and R-193780 and unfair competition torts/delicts. Both Polish companies produce different mayonnaise products that are sold in jars of a similar capacity. WSM Społem is a manufacturer of “Majonez KIELECKI”. In 2008, ROLESKI produced mayonnaise in a package bearing the designation “Świętokrzyski”. The label of this package was modified twice, by removing the word “Świętokrzyski” and by replacing it, during courts’ proceedings, by the word “Regionalny”. WSP SPOŁEM asked the District Court in Kraków to secure the claims and to issue preliminary injunction in order to prohibit ROLESKI, until the final decision is rendered, the sale of mayonnaise in a jar with a label containing a yellow background, a centered white box in the shape of an ellipse with a green border, and a green jar lid, and a round yellow sticker connected with jar’s side, and to seize and retain, until the final decision is issued, of all products held by the defendant in the form of mayonnaise packages with labels containing centered yellow background, a centered white or yellow field in a shape similar to an ellipse, framed or underlined by a green or red line, with a green round jar lids and a yellow label (band) connected to jar’s side, and also containing any of the elements described above.

R-123588

ROLESKI requested the Court to dismiss the suit. The Company argued that it does not counterfeit products of WSP SPOŁEM as it manufactures own products bearing reputable trade mark, which in consequence, eliminates not only identity, but also the similarity of products. ROLESKI noted that if the two parties compete under their own brands, there is no harm to the reputation and distinctive character of their trade marks. According to ROLESKI, WSM Społem mistaken reputation of the registered trade mark with the concept of the reputation of a product. As a result, it does not prove the reputation of the figurative mark R-197616, but generally a particular product “Majonez KIELECKI”. WSM by designating its product with a word “Majonez KIELECKI” indicates only its generic name and determine the place of origin, and therefore such trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character, as opposed to the trade mark used by ROLESKI, that is a distinctive sign.

R-193780

The District Court in Kraków in its judgment of 23 May 2012 case file IX GC 86/10 found that graphics of mayonnaise packages produced and marketed by ROLESKI were modeled on the graphics of mayonnaise package produced and marketed by WSP SPOŁEM. The Court noted that similarities outweighed the differences. The Court made findings of facts on the basis of documents submitted by the parties, as well as the testimony of witnesses and the opinion of an expert witness, except for the part where the expert speaks about the intentions of the designer’s of ROLESKI’s trade marks. The Court asked the expert on the likeness of packages containing the elements of trade marks and the impact of possible similarity on the likelihood of consumer confusion. ROLESKI filed an appeal complaint. The Court also found that ROLESKI used the word “Świętokrzyski”, but the office of the company was located in another voivodeship (Małopolska Voivodeship, in the Tarnów community), which was deemed as an act of unfair competition.

R-197616

The Appeallate Court in Kraków in its judgment of 15 January 2013 case file I ACa 1268/12 dismissed it and ruled that the District Court has made the appropriate findings. The Court noted that the evidence and testimony of expert witness allowed for a clear and comprehensive answer to the question of similarity of the goods, understood as a whole, including packaging, manufactured and marketed by the parties, taking into account changes made by ROLESKI in the appearance of mayonnaise packaging produced by the Company from Tarnów. The Court confirmed that by the use of the word “Świętokrzyski” together other elements similar to those attributed to WSM Społem, ROLESKI has exploited a set of associations created by WSM Społem for the product, which is mayonnaise with a specific package. The use of the additional word “Świętokrzyski” perpetuated these associations and allowed the Court to treat ROLESKI’s action as an act of unfair competition. ROLESKI appealed directly to the reputation of the product of WSM Społem by invoking the name of the capital of Świętokrzyskie region. The Court acknowledged similarity of the vast of words and figurative elements of packaging. All the elements visible on the packaging of both parties, although they include other wordings by the use of the same color and compositional arrangement lead to customer confusion as to the origin of the goods, and it also constitutes an act of unfair competition.

Trade mark law, case I ACa 1402/12

June 28th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company SOBIK, a producer of butter, sued Okręgowa Spółdzielnia Mleczarska in Radomsk (OSM) for trade mark infringement of the word-figurative trade mark NATURALNY PRODUKT POLSKI, MASŁO EXSTRA OSEŁKA GÓRSKA z ekologicznie czystych terenów R-165550 and the word-figurative trade mark Naturalny polski produkt z ekologicznie czystych terenów MASŁO EKSTRA OSEŁKA GÓRSKA Naturalny polski produkt z ekologicznie czystych terenów SOBIK DOBRE BO POLSKIE Wyróżnione nagrodą konsumenta LAUR KONSUMENTA 2005 Wyróżnione Srebrnym Laurem Konsumenta R-203677 and three other trade marks.

R-165550

SOBIK argued that OSM in Radoms used similar product packages for butter, in particular these with words “Masło Extra” (extra butter) and “Osełka” (butter pat) written in red font on white or creamy background, and with a layout of words and figurative elements that were similar to these used in the registered trade marks.

R-203677

The District Court in Łódź in its judgment of 30 August 2012 case file X GC 391/10 held that SOBIK failed to show the existence of three products on the market and the competitive behavior of the defendant in respect of infringements of trade marks R-200466, R-200467 and R-195683. However, the Court found the infringement of other two signs and ruled that consumers examine packaging of products, such as butter, from a distance. The Court noted that everyday-use products (FMCG) are displayed in stores next to each other, which may lead to likelihood of confusion, because consumers do not attach so much attention in their selection. The Court also found that OSM was involved in acts of unfair competition by imitating products of SOBIK. OSM filed an appeal complaint.

The Appeallate Court in Łódź in its judgment of 29 April 2013 case file I ACa 1402/12 dismissed it and ruled that OSM was not prohibited from the use of words such as “Masło Extra” or “Osełka”, but the company cannot use similar graphic design for these words on its products that could lead to consumers’ confusion.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 203/10

October 11th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company INTERKOBO Sp. z o.o. filed a request for the invalidation of the right of protection for the trade mark kucyk pony R-139097 that was registered for HASBRO POLAND Sp. z o.o. Kucyk means “pony” in Polish language. INTERKOBO argued that it has the legitimate interest in the invalidation proceedings because it is a manufacturer of toys, and it offers products such as toy ponies. In addition, in the cease and desist letter dated on 24 April 2007, HASBRO called INTERKOBO to stop the infringement of the right of protection for trade mark “kucyk pony” R-139097 which consisted of using by the INTERKOBO of “Princes’ s Pony” sign for designation of ponies’ toys. INTERKOBO argued also that HASBRO restricts the freedom of economic activity of its competitors, asking them to stop marketing of toys in the form of a small pony and requesting destruction of such products. By registering of the trade mark in question HASBRO had the intention of its use in isolation from the goods for which it was registered, and the intention of closing the access to the market for its competitors, the more that HASBRO as a professional market player should knew or should have known that the term “kucyk pony” as used for the toys in the form of a pony does not have any sufficient distinctiveness. INTERKOBO stressed that HASBRO Sp. z o.o. is a part of capital group operating on the global toys market, which is the position that allows it to dominate the market for local manufacturers of toys and contrary to the scope of the use made of registration to combat competition, which is contrary to the principles of the social coexistence. HASBRO claimed that its sign is used on the Polish market, on the packaging of “kucyk pony” toys and other materials, since 1998 and is the subject of a number of marketing activities, and the brand “kucyk pony” includes not only toys, but also videos and a monthly magazine for children. HASBRO argued that its trade mark has a strong distinctive character and can be regarded as a reputable one, in relation to the goods it designates it has the so-called primary distinctive character. The Polish Patent Office dismissed the request. INTERKOBO filed a complaint against PPO’s decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 24 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 203/10 affirmed this decision and dismissed the case. The VAC held that the trade mark in question is is a fanciful sign and has the primary distinctive character. It is not a generic name of any of the listed goods, and it does not inform about their properties. Pony (in Polish: kucyk) is the generic name of the horse species while it is not the name of the goods protected by the trade mark, which goods do not have any direct connection with any species of horses.

Unfair competition, case I ACa 1270/10

May 11th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Warsaw Court of Appeal in a judgment case file I ACa 1270/10, held that a failure to enforce one’s trademark protection can lead not only to the expiration of the protection right but even to an entire forfeiture of the right.

The unfair competition dispute between the Croatian Podravka (and its Polish daughter company – Podravka Polska) and Marina Maziarny – Hungarian producer of the equivalent of the Podravka’s spice (Węgierska Virgin Przyprawka) has been on for quite some time. The claimant in this case – Podravka, raised that the Hungarians use marks that are dangerously similar to those used by Podravka in Poland for almost 20 years. The marks in question present a cook with a bouquet of vegetables on a blue background. The respondents claimed that this type of logo had become standard in the spice industry, hence loosing any distinctiveness, primarily due to the “lack of activity on the part of the Croatians”.

Vegeta Podravka

Additionally, they raised that any potential claim the Croatians might have had, had long expired. Pursuant to article 20 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with later amendments, the statute of limitation for the unfair competition claims arising under the Act shall be 3 years (very much the same as in case of trade mark infringements). In the meantime (in 2003), Podravka Polska became aware of the infringement. However, it waited to file the lawsuit for 5 years (sic!), and finally did in 2008. And because of that undue delay, the court of I instance dismissed the suit justifying that if the daughter company had been aware of the infringement, so must have had the mother company. Podravka stressed that when it came to this particular type of infringement, each and every violation (i.e. each subsequent pitch of illegally marked goods) constituted a separate infringement, from the date of which the statute of limitations ran anew. And because the last pitch of the infringing goods was sold by the respondents in 2007, the statute of limitation has not run yet. But the Court of Appeals held differently. According to the Court, it is only the very first infringement that matters when it comes to computing the 3 years’ statute of limitation. However, the Court emphasized that this should apply solely to the Polish daughter company as it could not be proved with certainty that the Croatian mother company had been aware of the infringements already back in 2003. As as result, the Court decided that this aspect of the case should be remanded for more thorough investigation.

Once again, it has been shown that the issue of the statute of limitation in unfair competition claims can be highly troublesome and complicated. It also teaches a lesson that every IP right holder should be aware of the fact that his inaction in terms of the enforcement might not only result in the expiration of the statute of limitation but also in the dilution of his right via the strengthening of the competitor’s brand.

Categories: Art. 20 CUC | look-alikes | Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition | Polish Appeallate Court | unfair competition law.

Trade mark law, case I CSK 96/08

March 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

Lindt's hare

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

Terravita's hare

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

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

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

This time, Terravita brought a cassation complaint. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 3 October 2008, case file I CSK 96/08 held that in the circumstances of this case, there is no doubt that disputed hares are not identical and only its shape is the same, since they are manufactured from the same form. However on the foil of both hares, in a prominent place, one may find adequately put signs “Lindt Goldhase” or “Terravita”, which in fact makes the likelihood of consumer confusion practically excluded. The Court cited its earlier case law. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 1 February 2001, case file I CKN 1128/98, published at OSNC 2001, No. 9, item. 136, held that if word-figurative trade marks are used on the market then the word elements of such signs should have been attributed the distinvtice characteristics. The SC in its judgment 8 April 2003, case file IV CKN 22/01, published at OSP 2004, No. 5, item 61, held that in case of word-figurative trade marks the word element has the distinctive characteristics because it determines the ease of assimilation and the perception by the public. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 November 2003, case file I CK 176/02 (unpublished) excluded the risk of confusion in a situation where bottles used by the plaintiff and the defendant had the same shape (as in the facts of this case these bottles came from the same form), but were labeled with various word and images elements. In conclusion, the Court held that in the case of two identical products, one of which concerns the Community trade mark, the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of article 9(1)(b) of CTMR does not exist, if the other characteristics of goods, in particular bearing the word or image, allow them to be clearly distinguished.

Unfair competition, case V CSK 162/08

December 14th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 October 2008 case file V CSK 162/08 interpreted the provisions of Article 13 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments.

Article 13.
1. Imitating a finished product by way of technical means of reproduction, to copy an external image of such product where it may mislead customers as to the identity of the producer or product, shall be the act of unfair competition.
2. Imitating functional features of a product, in particular its make, structure and form ensuring its usefulness shall not be deemed the act of unfair competition. Where the imitation of functional features of a finished product requires including its characteristic form, which may mislead customers as to the producer or product identity, the imitator is under obligation to adequately mark the product.

The SC held that an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the CUC is also based on introduction to the market by a third-party of products copied in the manner specified in that provision.

Unfair competition law, case I CKN 1319/00

December 7th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Lego system A/S, Lego Trading A/S, Kirkbi A/S from Denmark and Lego Polska spólka z o.o. sued Polish companies “COBERT” spólka z o.o. and “COBI” for unfair competition (the delict of imitating a product) based on regulations included in article 13 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments.

Article 13.1. Imitating a finished product by way of technical means of reproduction, to copy an external image of such product where it may mislead customers as to the identity of the producer or product, shall be the act of unfair competition.

2. Imitating functional features of a product, in particular its make, structure and form ensuring its usefulness shall not be deemed the act of unfair competition. Where the imitation of functional features of a finished product requires including its characteristic form, which may mislead customers as to the producer or product identity, the imitator is under obligation adequately to mark the product.

COBERT is a manufacturer of plastic bricks. These bricks are structurally compatible with LEGO’s bricks and externally; some of them are very similar to LEGO’s. There is a “Cobi” trade mark impressed on each brick. The right for protection was granted by the Polish Patent Office on 6 September 1993 (R-77743). Each packaging is printed in colour and in addition there is a clearly visible “Cobi” sign in six different places of the packaging. There is also a sign of the manufacturer, with an indication of his exact address. The court of first instance noted that colours and themes of packaging for COBERT bricks are different than those used by LEGO. Those findings were acknowledged by the court of appeal. The court also held that the average customer can not be confused as to the origin of these bricks. According to the Court, the plaintiffs did not show any evidences that would allow them to base its claims on the so-called “unnamed delict” as afforded by regulations included in Article 3(1) of the CUC.

The act of unfair competition shall be the activity contrary to the law or good practices which threatens or infringes the interest of another entrepreneur or customer.

LEGO filed a cassation complaint before the Polish Supreme Court in which it requested the Supreme Court to overrule the court of appeal’s jugdment and to order the court of appeal to hear the case again or to change the appealed judgment by the SC and to issue a ruling as to the facts and costs of proceedings. The SC dismissed the cassation complaint. The Court noticed that parties had provided both extensive and exhaustive arguments about the conditions leading to qualify an act as unfair competition delict. Those arguments included economic, legal, even ethical issues. However, the Court held that imitation of others’ products is not reprehensible and blameworthy per se. The progress of civilization is possible thanks to the past legacy. Therefore, the development and improvement of each product is in the public interest. The Supreme Court found that CUC regulations are designed to ensure the accuracy of the behavior and activities of business entities in conditions of free competition and access to the market on an equal footing.

The Polish Supreme Court in its judgment of 11 July 2002 case file I CKN 1319/00 found that implementation of the constitutional principle of economic freedom also justifies the search for balance between market freedom and the freedom of goods circulation and the objectives of the CUC. The court found that the ban on other’s products imitation would lead to the emergence of unlimited monopoly against exploitation of technical solution (technology) and would prevent or at least hindered from entering the market for other companies engaged in the same or similar business activity. In Court’s view that was based on the principle of economic freedom and the rules of fair competition, such ban would be in contradiction with the law. The mere imitation of goods of another business, imitation of goods that are not enjoying any special protection by exclusive rights, does not conflict with the pursuit of competition and does not justify the interpretation of article 13 or 3 of the CUC that it is a delict of unfair competition, even if copies are in the same size as the original brick. As regards the packaging the SC held that comprehensive and clear indication of the manufacturer which is placed on a product packaging, and permanent placement of a trade mark on each product, which are put on the market, excludes the possibility of consumer confusion as to the identity of the manufacturer or the product.

Unfair competition case, V CSK 311/06

May 11th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 2 January 2007 case file V CSK 311/06 held that it is contrary to good customs/practice to introduce into the market of a product that is generically equivalent to existing goods that are produced by another manufacturer, if the attraction of the attention of customers was caused by the similarity of the packages that created positive associations in the minds of customers’ of the product previously introduced. This case concerned food packaging and labels of spices that were sold under brands Kucharek and Vegeta.

Unfair competition, case I ACa 900/99

September 11th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Katowice in its judgment of 29 March 2000 case file I ACa 900/99, interpreted provisions of article 13 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments.

Article 13.
1. Imitating a finished product by way of technical means of reproduction, to copy an external image of such product where it may mislead customers as to the identity of the producer or product, shall be the act of unfair competition.
2. Imitating functional features of a product, in particular its make, structure and form ensuring its usefulness shall not be deemed the act of unfair competition. Where the imitation of functional features of a finished product requires including its characteristic form, which may mislead customers as to the producer or product identity, the imitator is under obligation to adequately mark the product.

The Court held that according to the intention of the legislator, the delicts/torts defined in article 13 of the CUC concern not imitation, in general, but only the so-called “slavish imitation” (also referred to as look-alikes, knock-offs or parasitic copying), which is based on copying the external appearance of a product by technical means of reproduction and it creates the likelihood of customer confusion as to the identity of the manufacturer or a product.

Unfair competition, case I ACa 147/99

August 10th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Lublin in its judgment of 27 May 1999 case file I ACa 147/99 ruled that the term “competitive activity” shall mean all actions taken in connection with participation in the market gambling, consisting in achieving maximum benefit from the sale of goods. The court also clarified the provisions of Article 13 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments.

Article 13.
1. Imitating a finished product by way of technical means of reproduction, to copy an external image of such product where it may mislead customers as to the identity of the producer or product, shall be the act of unfair competition.
2. Imitating functional features of a product, in particular its make, structure and form ensuring its usefulness shall not be deemed the act of unfair competition. Where the imitation of functional features of a finished product requires including its characteristic form, which may mislead customers as to the producer or product identity, the imitator is under obligation to adequately mark the product.

The Court held that according to article 13 of the CUC, it is the important, that the copied outer form of the product creates the likelihood of customer confusion as to the identity of the manufacturer or a product. This situation appears only when the product becomes a commodity, that goes on the market and it’s exposed for sale to buyers.