Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/trademark-law/trade-mark-opposition/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:12:48+00:00

Document:
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).
Categories: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | medicinal product | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark opposition | trademark law.
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.
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.
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.
Categories: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 153 IPL | Art. 164 IPL | Art. 246 IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | trade mark opposition.
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.
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.
Categories: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 246 IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark opposition | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
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.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark opposition | trade mark use | trademark law.
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.
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.
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.
Categories: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish institutions | Polish Patent Office | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark opposition | trademark law.

References: Art. 132
 Art. 132
 Art. 153
 Art. 164
 Art. 246
 Art. 132
 Art. 246
 Art. 8
 Art. 9
 Art. 132