Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-constitution/art-32-constitution/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:21:03+00:00

Document:
The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word trade mark flex fuga Z-297616 applied for by MAPEI POLSKA Sp. z o.o. for goods in Class 1 such as adhesives based on plastics and resins, silicone mortars, for goods in Class 6 such as decorative moldings, profiles, metal profiles, and for goods in Class 19 such as decorative moldings, profiles, profiles not made of metal, masonry mortars, dry plaster, mortars for grouting and welding.
The PPO decided that this trade mark is devoid of sufficient distinctive character and it lacks any additional elements, such as verbal or graphic, which would allow potential purchasers to identify the goods with the source of the origin of goods. The PPO noted that a fuga is a weld/joint between adjacent wall elements and flex means flexible in English.
MAPEI filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 August 2009 case file VI SA/WA 1017/09. MAPEI decided to file a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 January 2011 case file II GSK 19/10 overturned the judgment of the VAC and held that the VAC relied on the erroneous assumption that the buyers (users) of goods bearing the trademark at issue are those who know English or use the Internet every day, which was not supported by any evidence. Besides, the trade mark flex fuga was applied for not only various types of mortars but also for various types of decorative moldings, profiles, sections of metal and non-metallic, and in relation to those goods it is difficult, to talk about “cut or bent” joint or weld.
The case went back to the Voivodeship Administrative Court. The VAC in its judgment of 9 May 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 562/11 held that the fact that the Polish Patent Office has granted the rights of protection for a number of trade marks containing the word “flex” or the word “flex” in combination with other words, should prompt the PPO to a broader examination of the merits of the MAPEI’s trade mark application. Thus, the PPO’s view that even if MAPEI relied on other decisions issued by the Polish Patent Office, it could not affect the assessment of the submitted application and its final examination, is not justified. The VAC noted that the PPO could change its position on the regularity of the grant of rights of protection, in which one element was the word “flex”, but it should justify such change in detail. The case law of the PPO may therefore be subject to change, if the authority demonstrates that there are reasonable grounds. However, any unfounded inconstancy of the opinion of the public body constitutes an infringement of the administrative procedure, because it may result in undermining citizens’ trust in state bodies and adversely affect the legal culture of citizens, and thereby cause a breach of the constitutional rule that all persons shall be equal before the law and all persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities.
Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 130 IPL | Art. 32 Constitution | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 80 APC | generic sign | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish Constitution | Polish Patent Office | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
On 9 July 2001, the Polish Supreme Bar Council (in Polish: Naczelna Rada Adwokacka), requested the Constitutional Tribunal, to declare unconstitutional the provisions of article. 236(1) and (3) 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 on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments.
1. Except as provided for in paragraph (2), in proceedings before the Patent Office in matters relating to the filing and processing of applications and maintenance of the protection of inventions, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, geographical indications and topographies of integrated circuits, only a patent agent may act as a representative of a party to a proceeding.
2. Subject to paragraph (3), a natural person may also be represented by a joint right holder or parents, brothers, sisters, descendants of the party or persons in the relation-by-adoption with the party.
3. In the matters referred to in paragraph (1), any persons not having their domicile or seat in Poland may only act when represented by a patent agent.
The SBC argued Polish advocates are not allowed to act before the PPO based on provisions of article 236(1) and (3) of the IPL, which in consequence violates the principles of equal treatment of all citizens provided in article 32 of the Polish Constitution.
1. All persons shall be equal before the law. All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities.
2. No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any reason whatsoever.
The Constitutional Tribunal in its judgment of 21 May 2002 case file K 30/01 published OTK-A 2002/3/32, held that the challenged provisions are constitutional. The request was unfounded because one cannot demand for equal treatment of all citizens, from the perspective of the right to perform given professional activity, based on the principle of equality of citizens before the law. According to settled case law of the Constitutional Tribunal, the principle of equality requires equal treatment of persons that have the same legal and factual situation, and – simultaneously – allows differentiation of the legal status of persons belonging to different groups, provided of course that the separation of these groups is made based on criteria consistent with the constitutional values. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the diversity of legal professions, on the one hand, and patent attorneys, on the other hand, does not violate any constitutional principles. The division of professionals and labour is quite obvious for a developed society. Professional groups at issue in this case include the highly specialized professionals, and their operation is strictly regulated by the law, both when it comes to specialist education and professional background, type of activity and responsibility for the improper performance of duties. The Tribunal ascertained that even within the strictly legal profession there is a clear differentiation, which – certainly – did not justify the claim of infringement of the constitutional principle of equality, for example, by forming different status of advocates and notaries, or advocates and solicitors.
Categories: Art. 236 IPL | Art. 32 Constitution | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys | Polish Constitution | Polish Constitutional Tribunal | Polish patent attorneys.
The Polish Patent Office in its decision of 10 April 2003 No Sp. 218/01 refused to invalidate the registration of AMBER R-98839 trade mark registered for goods in Class 3 such as bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices and owned by Evyap Sabun,Yag,Gliserin Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. from Istambul, Turkey. The request for invalidation was filed by IZIS Kosmetyczno-Lekarska Spółdzielnia Pracy from Warsaw and IZIS decided also to file a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 October 2004 case file 6 II SA 3571/03 annulled the questioned decision and ruled that it was made in a breach with procedural law. Evyap Sabun,Yag,Gliserin Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. filed a cassation complaint.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 May 2005 case file II GSK 49/05 ruled that there is no doubt that it’s necessary to refer to the inadmissibility of registration of a trade mark as provided Article 8(1) of the TMA with regard to the content of the trade mark itself. Initially, in legal doctrine and then in case-law, started to develop trends to classify to this provision also with the actions/behavior of a person who applied to register the trade mark, that were characterized by the contradiction with the principles of social coexistence, later replaced with the legislation naming such as “complying with the principles of good manners”, fair trading and good faith , so these are subjective elements. There were not, however, views, or judgments, combining this rule with the conduct of the administrative proceedings, because such understanding is simply unacceptable. The SAC repealed the questioned judgment.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 32 Constitution | Art. 8(1) TMA | likelihood of confusion | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish Constitution | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark examination | trade mark invalidation.

References: Art. 107
 §3
 Art. 129
 Art. 129
 Art. 130
 Art. 32
 Art. 7
 Art. 77
 Art. 80
 Art. 236
 Art. 32
 Art. 107
 §3
 Art. 32
 Art. 8