Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-administrative-proceedings-code/art-8-apc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:48:17+00:00

Document:
The Polish Patent Office in its decision of June 2010 case file Sp. 334/05 invalidated the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark CZUWAJ R-152214 (in English: “Be Prepared”) registered for Związek Harcerstwa Polskiego (ZHP). See “Trade mark law, case Sp. 334/05“. ZHP filed a complaint against this decision.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 April 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 2154/10 dismissed it. The Court agreed with the PPO that ZHP filed the questioned trade mark in bad faith. The VAC held that the trade mark application at issue violated the principle of free access to the scouting symbols that were traditionally used by different organizations. In 1990, the Polish legislator abolished this kind of “exclusive privilege” to use the symbols and insignia of the scout movement that was previously granted to ZHP. Despite the intentions of the legislator, ZHP somehow tried to restore this kind of monopoly by applying for the right of protection. The judgment is not final yet.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 315 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 8 APC | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 80 APC | bad faith | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 18 January 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1850/10 noted the trade mark law of Western countries has developed the principle that in the event of a conflict between two signs all doubts should be decided in favor of the owner of a trade mark with the earlier priority. This principle is a simple consequence of the belief that the entrepreneur who choose a trade mark that will be used for marking the same type of goods and that is similar to the mark with an earlier priority, is acting at his or her own risk and all uncertainties should be decided against him/her.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 8 APC | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | similarity of goods | similarity of services | similarity of signs | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
This case concerned the opposition proceedings against the decision on grant of the right of protection for NATURTEA R-191045 trade mark, owned by the Polish company ZAS-POL Sp. z o.o., and registered for goods in Class 30 such as tea, fruit teas, black, green, red, flavored tea. The opponent argued that NATURTEA is not sufficiently distinctive, because it is a descriptive term that indicates only the type of product – tea. The Polish Patent Office dismissed the case and ruled that such a trade mark, as a combination of two words is a fanciful sign and does not indicate characteristics of the marked goods. The opponent decided to file a complaint against this decision. According to ZAS-POL, the law firm that was the applicant in this case, had no legal interest (locus standi) in the invalidation of the right protection.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 30 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1056/10 annulled the questioned decision and set the case back for reconsideration. The Court ruled that the PPO completely ignored evidence submitted by the opponent as to the existence of the term “natural tea” in the market, and in fact, the PPO relied solely on the arguments provided by the trade mark owner. It was an example of violation of the principle that requires the public administration body to comprehensively collect and examine all evidential material.
The VAC reminded also that legal interest is not required to be proven only in case of oppositions filed according to Article 246 of the Polish Industry Property Law, where any person may give reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration, but only within six months from the publication in “Wiadomości Urzędu Patentowego” (the official journal of the Polish Patent Office) of the mention of the grant of a title of protection, and justifying at the same time the existence of the circumstances causing the invalidation of such right. The Court noted that it is the only example of the so-called actio popularis – a legal remedy that was introduced to the Polish Industrial Property Law because of the importance of public interest. This action is available to any person with the capacity to be a party in the administrative proceedings, even if such person is not directly interested in the matter. This judgment is not final yet.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 246 IPL | Art. 256 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 8 APC | Art. 80 APC | legal interest | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | trade mark opposition | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 146/10 held that the provisions of the Administrative Proceedings Code should be applied accordingly to the litigation procedure before the Polish Patent Office in cases not regulated by 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. It means that PPO is required to conduct proceedings in such a way as to increase the trust of citizens in the State bodies and public awareness and appreciation of the law. This principle implies the requirement of a lawful and fair conduct of the proceedings and settlement of the case by a public authority, which is the basic principle of Rule of law. Only the proceedings corresponding to such requirements and decisions rendered in it can inspire the trust of citizens in public administrations bodies, even when administrative decisions did not include claims raised by the citizen.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 256 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 8 APC | Art. 80 APC | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 December 1984 case file III SA 729/84, published in ONSA 1984 No 2 item 117, stressed that in order to implement the principle of Rule of Law, it is necessary first of all, strict adherence to the law, particularly with regard to clarify the exact circumstances of the case, to respond to specific requests and arguments of a party of the proceedings. The Administrative authority is also obliged take all necessary steps to clarify the facts of a case and to resolve it, having regard to the public interest and the legitimate interests of members of the public. The public administration body is also required to comprehensively collect and examine all evidential material. The public administration body should assess whether a given circumstance has been proven on the basis of the entirety of the evidential material and the factual justification of the decision should contain the facts that the body regards as proven, the evidence relied upon and the reasons for which other evidence has been treated as not authentic and without probative force. The legal justification should contain the legal authority for the decision with reference to the relevant law.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 8 APC | Art. 80 APC | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish Supreme Administrative Court.

References: Art. 107
 §3
 Art. 315
 Art. 7
 Art. 77
 Art. 8
 Art. 8
 Art. 80
 Art. 107
 §3
 Art. 132
 Art. 7
 Art. 77
 Art. 8
 Art. 107
 §3
 Art. 129
 Art. 129
 Art. 246
 Art. 256
 Art. 7
 Art. 77
 Art. 8
 Art. 80
 Art. 107
 §3
 Art. 256
 Art. 7
 Art. 77
 Art. 8
 Art. 80
 Art. 107
 §3
 Art. 7
 Art. 77
 Art. 8
 Art. 80