Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/trademark-law/trade-mark-invalidation/page/3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:04:18+00:00

Document:
The VAC also noted that according to article 246 of the IPL any person may give reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection within six months from the publication in “Wiadomości Urzędu Patentowego” of the mention of the grant of a title of protection, and according to article 164 of the IPL, the right of protection for a trademark may be invalidated in whole or in part at the request of any person having a legitimate interest therein, provided that that person is able to prove that the statutory requirements for the grant of that right have not been satisfied. In such cases, the person is a party to the proceedings. This case concerned Gobired trade mark R-222675 owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowo-Usługowe MAREL PLUS Leszek Marcinowski from Gdańsk.
Categories: Art. 143 IPL | Art. 164 IPL | Art. 246 IPL | legal interest | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Patent Office | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
The Polish company BI-ES sp. z o.o., the owner of the word-figurative trade mark BI-ES R-137322, requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the word trade mark BI-KOR R-151731 registered for BIKOR Elżbieta Korbutt. for goods in Class 3 such as cosmetics, in Class 5 such as pharmaceutical preparations for cosmetic purposes, and in Class 41 for services such as organizing and conducting cosmetic and make-up exhibition for contests and educational purposes.
BI-ES noted that its trade mark was registered with the earlier priority for the wide spectrum of goods in Class 3 such as perfumery products, perfumes, toilet waters, perfumed sprays, colognes, essential oils and others. The Company claimed that both trade marks are very similar and BIKOR used the idea to separate of the first syllable BI from the second segment with a dash.
BIKOR argued that its sign was present on the marker much earlier than BI-ES. This sign has been applied to the Polish Patent Office in March 1995, four years before the trade mark BI-ES, but this application failed due to temporary financial difficulties.
The Polish Patent Office dismissed the request and ruled that both trade marks differ in all three aspects. The PPO noted that it would be hard to prove that there was imitation on the notation of both signs, becasue there were many registrations of marks with a dash. BI-ES filed a complaint against this decision. The Company argued that BIKOR was not represented properly, becasue the PoA has not been signed by Elżbieta Korbutt. The signature was partially illegible. Admission of a case where the party was represented by a patent attorney without proper PoA is a flagrant violation of the procedural rules and the decision resulting from that proceedings should be annulled because it was rendered as a result of defectively performed administrative proceedings.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 February 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 2094/06 dismissed it. The Court ruled that the PPO did not correctly examine the similarity of signs based on the etymology of BI- prefix, however, the whole assesment proved that both signs are disimilar. The VAC noted that the power of attorney should be given in writing and attached to the case file when making the first legal action. The Court found that the copy of PoA was on the case file and it was issued under the authority and properly signed next to the stamp of a company. The original PoA was on file for the trade mark BI-KOR R-151731. The power of attorney was not challenged in the course of the invalidation proceedings, by the trade mark owner or the opponent.
Categories: Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | likelihood of confusion | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys | Polish courts | Polish institutions | Polish law | Polish patent attorneys | Polish Patent Office | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trade mark opposition | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 June 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1731/08 ruled that while examining the violations of the rules of social coexistence, the Polish Patent Office must take into account also the subjective elements, which means that on existence of the conditions referred to in Article 8(1) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments, may decide certain actions of the trade mark applicant, especially when these actions are characterized by offending behavior.
This judgment concerned the invalidation proceedings of ecard R-150521 trade mark owned by Firstcove Technology Limited from Dublin. The VAC held also the right to company’s name (firm) is created at the time, when the order of entry into the commercial register is issued. However, the fact that information on the formation of a specific company was made publicly available, the issuance of which is required by law, should also be taken into account. This argument must be considered by the PPO in the assessment of allegations of violation of Article 8(2) of the TMA. The cassation complaint was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 November 2010 case file II GSK 1011/09.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 80 APC | bad faith | company name or firm | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 October 2009 VI SA/Wa 897/09 held that the company name (firm) serves as the identification and prominence of the entrepreneur in the legal and economic transactions. It is also a carrier of certain information about the characteristics and qualities of business conducted by such entrepreneur. An unauthorized interference with the function of a company name infringes on the right to the name. The company name, also of the civil partnership, is a personal interests/asset of the company and relates to its identity when it individualize such entrepreneur. The firm/company name is subject to protection of personal rights/intrests under Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 43 10 of the Civil Code.
The Court ruled that the company name (firm) is the absolute personal right, effective erga omnes, and enjoyed by everyone including businesses and individuals that do business in the form of civil partnership. The right to a company name is formed with the entry of the entrepreneur in the business register, and in any event, when the company used for the first time in trade. Entrepreneurs may claim the right to the company name (the firm) after they have been registered in the Register of Entrepreneurs in the National Court Register or in the Economic Activity Records. The disclosure of trade name/company’s name is provided in the registry (National Court Register – Polish public register maintained by the selected regional courts and the Ministry of Justice which includes the register of enterprises). It has a declaratory nature. The Economic Activity Records are maintained by the municipality of the place of residence of the entrepreneur.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 January 2008 case file II GSK 298/07 held that the right of the company name is infringed if the registration of a trade mark conflicts and interferes with the exercise of the right to company name. See “Trade mark law, II GSK 298/07“. This conflict is based on misleading as to the identity of entities (acting under the company name and using the trade mark) and therefore it may jeopardize the company name (firm). Such conclusions were reached by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 26 April 2006 case file II GSK 31/06.
This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of word-figurative trade mark PIOR R-143502 owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Usługowo-Handlowo-Reklamowe PRIOR, Rostkowska Janina, Rostkowski Jan, Kuc Małgorzata from Chorzów.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | bad faith | company name or firm | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Trade marks | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

References: Art. 143
 Art. 164
 Art. 246
 Art. 9
 Art. 107
 §3
 Art. 7
 Art. 77
 Art. 8
 Art. 80
 Art. 8
 Art. 8
 Art. 9