Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/trademark-law/well-known-trade-marks/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:32:30+00:00

Document:
The Appeallate Court in Katowice in its judgment of 5 April 2011 case file V ACa 77/11 ruled that there is no reason to claim that a reputable trade mark must have a greater recognition than well-known signs. Decisive are the quality criteria, and not the quantity. A reputed trade mark does not have to be well-known, and a well-known sign does not have to be reputed one.
Categories: Art. 296(2)(iii) IPL | famous trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Appeallate Court | Polish courts | Polish law | reputed trade marks | trade mark infringement | trademark law | well known trade marks.
The Appeallate Court in Wrocław in its judgment of 17 December 2008 case file I ACa 988/08 held that the wide scope of protection of reputed trade marks should be afforded only for well-known signs that are characterized by prestige, that is associated with the goods of exceptional – especially high-quality – and, most importantly, signs of such a strong and established position that they attract attention no matter for which of the goods they are used.
The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 15 September 2010 case Sp. 181/09 invalidated the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark LEXUS R-194634 registered for the Polish company Astin sp. z o.o. This trade mark was registered for goods and services in Classes 06, 19, 20 and 37. The request for invalidation was filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Toyota Motor Corporation). Toyota owns renown trade marks LEXUS that were registered with the earlier priority in Poland and in the European Union.
The PPO acknowledged the rule that the starting point for finding an infringement of reputation is to determine the similarity of the signs. In the case of combined trade marks (word-figurative), it is always necessary to consider the similarity of all the elements of trade marks being compared, but the verbal elements are crucial. The PPO decided that the dominant and distinctive elements of questioned trade mark and the opposing signs are original and similar words LEXUS. These trade marks are verbally identical. In the opinion of the PPO, the figurative element of the questioned trade mark only exposed and additionally strengthen in the mind of the potential consumer the word element of this trade mark. The PPO also ruled that in the conceptual aspect the sign LEXUS is fanciful one.
Astin claimed that the reputation of LEXUS trade marks has not been sufficiently proved because Toyota did not present evidence on the use in time and territorial use its trade marks, the quality of the goods, market share, and the size of investment in promotions. Toyota presented rich evidence material. These included copies of newspaper articles and advertisements from the years 1992-1999. According to Toyota, these publications indicated that the reputation of LEXUS trade marks has been shaped by long-standing and consistent creation of a positive brand image in the minds of Polish consumers. The PPO noted that there is no legal definition of a reputation. It was the Polish legal doctrine and the courts that have defined the essential criteria for determining what trademark reputation is. Accordingly, the reputation of a trademark is associated with the established opinion among customers about the characteristics of the goods bearing the mark. The reputation is not a simple consequence of the use and circulation of a trademark, but it’s also a well-established and deeply rooted image in the consciousness of buyers of the relevant goods. The reputation of a trademark is a result of the care for the high quality of products, the consistent preservation of a sign on the market by long and intensive advertising. An established reputation of a trademark occurs when the quality of the goods bearing the sign satisfy customers who can easily recognize it and connect with the goods marked by the proprietor, even if it means that the goods are placed on the market for the first time. The reputation of a trademark means its attractive value of advertising, the positive perceptions of the goods bearing the sign. In assessing whether the sign is reputed, one cannot take into the account only the degree of knowledge of a sign among the customers and the extent and intensity of advertising of goods bearing the sign, but also the quality of these goods. Prizes and certificates awarded for the goods bearing the sign, expert opinions and presentation of the goods at trade fairs in order to promote products also show the reputation of the trademark. It was confirmed that the protection of reputed trademarks extends beyond the scope of registration and the selected classes, as reputed trademarks enjoy stronger distinctiveness. However, the burden of proof lies with the holder of the reputed trademark.
The PPO agreed with the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 13 March 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1626/05 that LEXUS trade marks owned by Toyota are renown and reputed signs. See “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1626/05“. The PPO found that the questioned trade mark LEXUS R-194634 was filed for the registration on the date where Toyota’s trade mark enjoyed high recognition on the Polish market and were associated with the luxury brand of cars and the prestigious image of the brand was the subject of intense marketing efforts of the producer. However, the fact that the trade mark is renown is not a sufficient circumstance to invalidate the right of protection, other conditions must be met, namely if the latter registered trade mark on behalf of another party for any kind of goods, would without due cause bring unfair advantage to the applicant or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.
The PPO held that the existence of the questioned trade mark on the Polish market may negatively affect the distinctive ability of Toyota’s trade marks because consumers may start to associate luxury brand with household tools. In addition, the detrimental nature of the registration in question may be manifested in other ways. For instance, it may cause the renown trade mark to become an ordinary sign that has lost the ability to attract the consumer and the strength with which it interacts to the mass public. This decision is not final yet.
Categories: Art. 132(2)(iii) IPL | famous trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Patent Office | reputed trade marks | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | well known trade marks.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 Demceber 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 650/10 acknowledged the rule that the infringement of the company name as a condition to invalidate the registration of a trade mark under the old Polish Trade Mark law is not forejudged by registration of an identical or similar mark by another company. The VAC repeated that the exclusive rights to the company name are not an absolute. The limits have the territorial and objective nature and they concern the actual actvity of an entity that is using the name in question. Only within these limits the collision between identical or similar company name and trademark may occur. So if the scope of business activities of an entitled to the company name and the holder of the registration of the trade mark differs, there is no risk of consumers confusion as to the identity of companies or for example, a proprietor of the later trade mark is not using the reputation associated with an earlier identical or similar company name, it’s hard to say that there is the collision of these two rights, and consequently an infringement of an earlier right to the company name. This judgment is not final yet.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | company name or firm | famous trade marks | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Trade marks | trade mark invalidation | Voivodeship Administrative Court | well known trade marks.
The Appellate Court in Wrocław in its judgment of 3 October 2007 case file I ACa 767/07, published in Lex no. 519252, held that reputable characters in comparison with other signs are characterized by stronger distinguishing ability that results from good information and notions of quality and prestige, provided by a sign to potential customers, facilitating the sale of goods bearing that trade mark.At the same time, such trade mark has a measurably market value and represents a significant, or even dominant component of the company’s assets. A reputed trade mark is protected even outside of its class or classes. Because, in such cases, advertising and qualitative functions of a trade mark are protected, and not the function of designation of origin of the product or service. The term of reputation refers both to the registered trade marks as well as well-known signs that are not registered.
Categories: Art. 132(2)(iii) IPL | Art. 296(2)(iii) IPL | famous trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Appeallate Court | Polish courts | reputed trade marks | trade mark infringement | trademark law | well known trade marks.
On 9 July 1998, the Polish company called “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL Spólka z o. o.” (PUTI) applied for trade mark reigstration for word-figurative sign “i INTEL” in class 37 for services such as: electric appliance installation and repair, fire alarm installation and repair, burglar alarm installation and repair, installation and repair of extinguishing and smoke ventilation systems, installation and repair of access control systems, and in class 38 for industrial television. The Polish Patent Office has granted the protection rights in its decision of 9 December 2002. On 21 July 2003, Intel Corporation has filed an opposition against the PPO’s decision. Since the trade mark application was filed while 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, was in force, so the opposition had to be based on its article 8(1) and (2) and article 9(1)(i) and (ii).
To support its opposition, Intel Corp. has provided arguments that a sign is applied for or registered in contrary to the principles of society coexistence if it seeks to use or to undermine the reputation of other trade mark, regardless of the nature of the goods or services to which it refers. Intel Corp. successfully argued that Intel is word trade mark which is well-known and reputable. It is widely recognized and valued as a synonym for the highest quality products branded by this sign (or its derivatives) in the IT sector. The widespread knowledge of that trade was also confirmed in the Polish Patent Office’s decision in early 1994. The features and the highest quality of Intel brand products have also to be attributed to the Intel Inside trade mark because of its equally vast, global popularity and strong positive associations among customers. Intel R-93693 and Intel Inside R-86431 trade marks were registered in Poland in priority, respectively of 8 November 1990 and 18 June 1991.
“i Intel” is a sign which has a distinctive part consisting of Intel sign which is similar to Intel Copr. trade marks. It leads consumers to think that there is an association between Intel Corporation and a disputed sign, consequently, there is a risk of confusion as to the origin of goods or services which are identified by the disputed mark. According to Intel Corp., the use of the contested trade mark by PUTI was based on the reputation and the widely recognized quality of Intel trade mark. PUTI registration was made in favour of its marketing business and for the economic benefits of the Polish company. This kind of behavior also brings the risk of confusion among consumers as to the identity, trade and economic links and between Intel Corporation and PUTI. In addition, Intel Corporation has filed the explanatory memorandum arguing that “i Intel” sign violates the applicant’s personal rights. The firm (protected as personal rights under the Polish Civil Code) is the name under which Intel Corporation conducts its business, it is also the reputation of a company, to which the applicant has worked since 1968 (the establishment of Intel Corporation in the U.S.).
Since fields of business activities of PUTI and Intel Corp. did not overlap, The Polish firm argued that Intel Corp. had not demonstrated that the disputed trade mark makes difficult for Intel to use its company name. PUTI has also argued that the opposition should not be based on article 9 of the PTA since the disputed trade mark is designated for services not goods. PUTI argued that it has been using the name “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL” in 1989 and 1990, which was before Intel Corporation had registered its trade marks in Poland.
The Polish Patent Office invalidated “i Intel” trade mark in its decision of 19 October 2005. It was proved before the PPO that PUTI was founded on 23 July 1997 as a limited liability company, and previously (from 1 November 1983) it had operated on the market in the form of a civil company and the name Intel had been used for the first time in its firm in 1994. In PPO’s opinion, PUTI’s use of “i Intel” sign with ® before trade mark registration was granted was also a proof of taking the advantage of reputation of Intel Corp. trade marks, which was contrary to the principles of society coexistence that were defined in this case as a matter of fairness trade.
PUTI appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 April 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 126/06 dismissed the appeal. The court held that trade marks of Intel Corp. that were registered with the earlier priority are renowned in Poland in relation to the persons involved in electronics, computers, electrical and electronic equipment of various kinds, and PUTI’s application for the contested trade mark was intended to use the reputation of Intel Corp. trade mark portfolio. In court’s opinion the Polish Patent Office has had to compare these trade marks with the disputed sign in aural verbal and visual aspects and it has reasonably concluded that there is a clear likeness between them, and given that the signs are used for determining goods, which are compatible with regard to services to which the disputed trade mark is intended use, so there was a condition for the inadmissibility of the disputed trade mark registration within the meaning of article 9.
PUTI filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court. However, the Court dismissed the case in its judgment of 15 May 2007 case file II GSK 361/06. SAC explicitly held that Intel is well-known trade mark on the Polish market (strong sign) and its reputation was not questioned even by the Polish company. Consequently, it should be considered that the danger of confusion between trade marks by customers, is the greater, the more well-known (or as the Court also said – standardized) is a trade mark with an earlier priority, because customers’ memory directs them in a particulary easy way, to trade marks which are well-known on the market.
Categories: Art. 184 PBAC | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | company name or firm | famous trade marks | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | trade mark infringement | trademark law | well known trade marks.
On 8 November 2004, the Polish Patent Office received a request from JOOP GmbH on the invalidation of the right of protection for JUUPI! R-103654 trade mark owned by “AQUAREL” Kosiorek Spółka Jawna. The applicant has based its legal interest on the fact that questioned sign is similar to JOOP! R-64463 trade mark, registered on his behalf with an earlier priority, and to international trade mark registration JOOP! IR-739262. The request was based on provisions of Article 165 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), 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.
(iii) on the ground that it conflicts with a well-known trademark, where the party entitled to the well-known trademark has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years of the use of the registered trademark, in the use of the latter while being aware of such use.
2. Paragraph (1) shall not apply, where the holder of the right has acquired the right in bad faith.
The PPO dismissed the request. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 October 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 1339/06 rejected the appeal filed by JOOP GmbH and upheld the decision of the PPO. JOOP filed a cassation complaint.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 July 2007 case file II GSK 98/07 held that “being aware of the use of the mark” means that the applicant, who requested for the invalidation based on provisions of article 165 of the IPL, had knowledge about the use of that trade mark by its proprietor. One cannot extend the scope of this statutory condition for “the possibility” or “the duty” to finding out or getting acquitant that such mark is being used by its proprietor. The Court ruled that it’s impossible to accept the existence of a general legal obligation that could be put on entrepreneurs to “track the competition” in order to be aware of the use of different trade marks on the market.
Categories: Art. 165 IPL | Art. 6 CC | bad faith | famous trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Civil Code | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | well known trade marks.
The Supreme Court Civil Chamber in its judgment of 7 March 2008, case file II CSK 428/06 ruled that the fact that the company has been operating on the Polish market for several years, has a rich tradition, and its trade marks are well known because of the long-term mass production, continuous use and continuous presence in the market, advertising, and customers and that they will associate the sign and its manufacturer with a product, cannot determine the method of accepting these signs to the category of reputed trade marks.
The selection of reputable trade marks is made by using a different criterion than the one which help to distinguish a group of well-known trade marks. The Reputation of the trade mean its attractiveness, the value of advertising and the ability to stimulate the sales of goods marked. It is therefore a criterion referring to the particular quality of a mark rather than to the degree of knowledge about such sign. It expresses the opinion that a reputable sign, which – unlike trade marks used as the indication of origin – implements a “clean” function of attracting customers. In the absence of legal definition, a reputed trade mark should therefore be assess according to the abovementioned criteria, rather than by knowledge in the market that provides the basis for a well known trade marks.
Categories: Art. 296(2)(iii) IPL | case law | famous trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Supreme Court | reputed trade marks | trademark law | well known trade marks.
Hortino (formerly Zakład Przetwórstwa Owocowo-Warzywnego, “Zakład” for short) entered a sale agreement with Hortex on 31 May 2000, purchasing one of the Hortex’s manufacturing units located in Leżajsk. The agreement did not apply to any trade mark assets and was not a trade mark licence agreement at all. In June 2000, Zaklad added to its company name the word “Hortino”. One month later, the company (now called Hortino) applied to the Polish Patent Office (PPO) to register a trade mark for goods in classes 5, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, and 42 of the Nice Classification. The trade mark was represented as a white snowflake on a blue rectangular background with the word “Hortino” in white letters.
The PPO registered Hortino’s trade mark R-130090 in June 2001. Hortex challenged the registration before the PPO claiming that the decision to grant Hortino’s trade mark was inconsistent with article 9(1)(1) he 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 later amendments, repealed on 22 August 2001 by the 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.
Hortex claimed that this section clearly precluded registration of a trade mark with later priority if its usage was in conflict with an already-registered trade mark. Hortex was already the owner of a registered trade mark composed of a white background, green bordering, and the letters “Hortex” in red. The Board of Oppositions in its decision of 9 May 2003, case Sp. 192/01, not only upheld Hortex’s objection but also decided that Hortino’s trade mark was registered contrary to Article 8(1) and (2) of the TMA. This Article prohibits registration of a trade mark that is contrary to principles of social comity (a very broad Polish civil law legal concept, in some respects similar to the public policy rule) or violates the personal or financial rights of a third party. The PPO also ruled HORTEX trade mark is so-called “hard sign” that is existing on the market for many years and it is easily identified by the customers, thereby the risk of confusing it with another mark is increasingly significant.
Hortino appealed to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, which upheld the contested decision in its judgment of 9 September 2004, case file II SA 2481/03. The Voivodeship Administrative Court also ruled that the registration of Hortino’s mark was in breach of article 9(1)(1) of TMA, that mark being sufficiently similar to an earlier registered trade mark to be likely to confuse consumers, under regular conditions of commerce, as to the origin of goods. Once again, Hortino filed a cassation complaint, this time to the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC declined to hear the case and upheld the lower court’s decision in its judgment of 24 May 2005, case file II GSK 63/05.
This successfully ended the administrative procedure between the respective parties. The second suit was decided by the civil court and I reported on this case in my posts entitled “Unfair competition delict, case V CSK 237/06“.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | bad faith | company name or firm | famous trade marks | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | similarity of signs | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court | well known trade marks.
The Appellate Court in Katowice in its judgment of 3 March 1999, case file I ACa 687/98, held that the knowledge of a sign among the potential buyers predetermines whether a trademark is well known. However, due to far-reaching specialization of production it cannot be excluded that this range of potential buyers will be limited to a closed group of specialist. Therefore, a well-known trade mark that is recognized by such a group, will not necessarily be known to the average purchaser/consumer, who does not participate in this specialist market.
Categories: case law | Polish Appeallate Court | trademark law | well known trade marks.

References: Art. 296
 Art. 132
 Art. 8
 Art. 8
 Art. 9
 Art. 132
 Art. 296
 Art. 184
 Art. 8
 Art. 8
 Art. 9
 Art. 165
 Art. 6
 Art. 296
 Art. 8
 Art. 8
 Art. 9