Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-industrial-property-law/art-1292ii-ipl/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:16:58+00:00

Document:
TRODAT POLSKA Sp. z o.o. from Warsaw applied for the right of protection for Pieczątka 2 Z-294822, Pieczątka 3 Z-294821, and Pieczątka 4 Z-294823 trade marks in class 13. Pieczątka means “stamp” in English. The Polish Patent Office in letters dated 27 March 2007 informed the applicant that these signs are not capable of serving as trade marks due to lack of sufficient distinctive character and urged Trodat to submit comment on this issue. The applicant did not respond to the letters sent by the PPO, in particular, Trodat did not take any position on the reported lack of sufficient distinctive character.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 July 2010 case file II GSK 607/09 held that the burden of proof rests on those who seek for legal consequences from a particular fact for itself (the applicant), it results from a series of obligations incumbent on the applicant, including the obligation to provide explanations, to take an active part in the proceedings and to submit precise requests. These obligations are provided in Articles 145(2) and 152 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 subsequent amendments, in connection with Regulation of the Prime Minister of 8 July 2002 on filing and processing of trademark applications, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 115, item 998 with subsequent amendments.
3. Where the statutory requirements are found not to have been satisfied in respect to only certain goods, a right of protection for the trademark in respect of these goods shall be first to be refused by the Patent Office. On the respective decision becoming final the Patent Office shall grant a right of protection for the trademark in respect of the goods, for which it can be granted.
The Prime Minister shall, by way of regulation, determine the detailed requirements to be satisfied by a trademark application, the detailed rules and procedure to be applied in the course of examination of trademark applications including, in particular, the extent to which the relevant information may be disclosed to the public after the expiration of the period referred to in Article 143 and the manner in which it is made available, as well as the extent to which the Patent Office is authorised to make corrections in the list of goods and their classification. The requirements to be satisfied by trademark applications may not be determined in such a way as to encumber the applicant with excessive and unreasonable impediments.
The renunciation of the party – despite the invitation issued by the Polish Patent Office – to submit sufficient evidence, explanations, positions may not be of no importance in a situation where the party alleges that the PPO erred in its decision in this particular issue, as a result of breach of the obligation imposed on the PPO to clarify the circumstances of the case in accordance with Article 7 and 77 of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments.
The SAC noted that the provisions of the IPL that provides the possibility to request the applicant by the PPO to submit comments or issue a statement, in fact, serve to define the limits of administrative case, such as defining what is to be examined by the PPO and to what extent this should occur. The PPO is required to make an invitation before taking a decision, therefore, before deciding on the matter. At this stage, it is possible to have the intervention of the parties, if, contrary to the intentions expressed in the request/application, the PPO, for example, does not cover by its activities of all elements of the case, or unreasonably restricts its borders.
Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 130 IPL | Art. 145 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | distinctive character | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | trade mark refusal | trademark law.
This is a continuation of the story described in a post entitled “Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1000/08“. Les Laboratoires Servier from France filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 16 December 2009, case file II GSK 214/09, ruled that the sign GLAZIDE is representing a creative transformation of the name of an active ingredient (AI) called gliclazidium (gliclazide) that was proposed by the WHO. GLAZIDE has the distinctive character because it is a fanciful sign and it does not constitute either a name of a generic product, or the International Nonproprietary Name of the active substance of the Latin Gliclazidum (English: Gliklazide, Polish: Gliklazyd), nor does it directly inform about the characteristics (properties) of goods. Therefore, the SAC rejected the complaint.
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | distinctive character | generic sign | medicinal product | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

References: Art. 129
 Art. 129
 Art. 130
 Art. 145
 Art. 7
 Art. 77
 Art. 129
 Art. 129