Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-industrial-property-law/art-315-ipl/
Timestamp: 2019-06-24 19:23:07
Document Index: 369875520

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 315', 'Art. 315', 'Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 145', 'Art. 152', 'Art. 164', 'Art. 252', 'Art. 315', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 154', 'Art. 169', 'Art. 20', 'Art. 22', 'Art. 256', 'Art. 315', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 169', 'Art. 315', 'Art. 315', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 184', 'Art. 315', 'Art. 9']

Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » Art. 315 IPL
Archive for: Art. 315 IPL
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 839/09
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 145 PBAC | Art. 152 PBAC | Art. 164 IPL | Art. 252 IPL | Art. 315 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 80 APC | bad faith | likelihood of confusion | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 173/10
July 18th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 173/10 held that the statutory condition for the lapse of the right of protection is intended to eliminate the rights of protection granted to those signs that are not actually used in trade. The grant of the protection for a trademark is associated with the statutory obligation of genuine use of the mark for goods and services for which the trade mark is registered. It cannot be used symbolically, only to maintain the rights of registration. This case concerned the proceedings on lapse of the right of protection for “transpak gotuj ze smakiem” R-129729 trade Mark owned by Grajewski Zbigniew, Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Usługowo-Handlowe TRANSPAK from Puszczykowo.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 154 IPL | Art. 169(1)(i) IPL | Art. 20 Constitution | Art. 22 Constitution | Art. 256 IPL | Art. 315 IPL | Art. 77 APC | Art. 80 APC | genuine use | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish Constitution | trade mark lapse | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 156/09
December 12th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 October 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 927/08 dismissed the complaint against the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the refusal to decide on the lapse of the right of protection of GAP R-171132 and GAP R-171135 trade mark owned by GAP (ITM) INC. Przedsiębiorstwo Prywatne GAPPOL Marzena Porczyńska who was the applicant in the case before the PPO, filed a cassation complaint against this decision.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 October 2009 case file II GSK 156/09 dismissed the compliant and held that pursuant to Article 315(1) of the IPL, the provisions of the old Trade Marks ACT are used to assess the effects of legal events occurring during their validity, while the effects of legal events that occurred after 22 August 2001, should be assessed under the provisions of the IPL, also when they related to the existing rights. To assess the effects of the expiry of the period/deadline that was required for recognizing the request to decide on the lapse of the right of protection as effective – if such a request was made after 22 August 2001, the provisions of the IPL should be used.
The Court held that in favor to adopt the date of issuance of the decision granting a right of protection as the starting point of the five-year period referred to in Article 169(1)(i) of the IPL, speaks the literal interpretation of this provision.
1. The right of protection for a trademark shall also lapse:
(i) on failure to put to genuine use of the registered trademark for the goods covered by the registration for a period of five successive years after a decision on the grant of a right of protection has been taken, unless serious reasons of non-use thereof exist.
The SAC reached such conclusions because the “registered trademark” as referred to in this article, appears only after the decision in the matter was issued, and not on the date of filing a trade mark application.
Categories: Art. 169(1)(i) IPL | Art. 315 IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 31/06
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 8 April 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2258/08 anulled the Polish Patent Office’s decision from 2007 and ordered the PPO to reconsider the invalidation of the brothers’ Miś trade mark. The Court ruled that a company name (the firm) serves to identify and to individualize an entrepreneur in legal and business market turnover, containing information about the characteristics and attributes of someone’s business. The finding that there was an infringement of these elements determines the recognition that there was an infringement of the law. However, infringement cannot be determined by the trade mark registration (even the later one) that was similar to the company name.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 6 October 2008 case file II GSK 406/08 ordered the VAC to reconsider the case. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 406/08“.
As the Supreme Administrative Court ruled in its judgment of 26 April 2006 case file II GSK 31/06, the exclusive rights to the “firm” (company name) are not absolute, and the limits of its extent are set by the territory a firm operates, the subject of actual business activities of the company that is using given firm. In fact, only within these limits a conflict between similar company name (the firm) and trade mark may occur. The Court, citing the earlier judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of case file 6 II SA 2757/02, ruled that the PPO had to consider if the registration of a disputed trade mark prevents other market participants from use a sign which has a purely informational meaning.
Categories: Art. 315 IPL | Art. 8(2) TMA | company name or firm | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | trade mark invalidation | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 269/06
By decision of 11 August 2005, the Patent Office refused to grant a right of protection for word-figurative “R-Profit” Z-234207 trade mark applied for by Raiffeisen Bank Polska S.A. for goods in Class 36 such as banking services for small and medium enterprises. The Patent Office concluded after examination proceedings that this sign may not be registered because it is similar to PROFIT R-87400 trade mark, registered for Bank Polska Kasa Opieki SA, with priority of 3 November 1993 for goods in Class 36 such as management of interest bearing money investments in zlotys. The PPO also stated that, in this case, the issue of services could not be challenged, since both signs are designed for the same services to a wide audience, i.e. banking services. The PPO ruled that both signs cannot exist simultaneously in trade without the risk of consumers confusions. In the opinion of the PPO there was no doubt that the trade marks are also similar phonetically and semantically.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 May 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 542/06 dismissed the complaint filed by Raiffeisen Bank Polska S.A. and noted at the beggining that Article 315(1)(3) of the IPL, expresses the principle that the issue of the registrability of signs that were registered or applied for registration before 22 August 2001, is assessed on the basis of existing regulations. therefore the provisions of the Act of 31 January 1985 on trade marks are the basis for assessing the registrability of R-Profit trade mark, because it was applied for registration on 10 April 2001.
1. Rights conferred in respect of inventions, utility models, ornamental designs, topographies of integrated circuits, trademarks and rationalisation projects, existing at the time of entry into force of this Law, shall remain effective. To these rights the previous provisions are applicable, unless the provisions of this Part stipulate otherwise.
2. Legal relationships established prior to the entry into force of this Law shall continue to be governed by the previous provisions.
3. Statutory requirements for the grant of a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration shall be assessed under the provisions effective at a date of filing of an application concerning an invention, a utility model, a trademark or topography of an integrated circuit with the Patent Office. However, the provision of Article 37(2) shall apply to patent and utility model applications pending at the date of entry into force of this Law.
In the opinion of the VAC that this case involved the same type of services. The Court agreed with the analysis of the list of services performed by the PPO that there exists homogenity of services between in both lists of goods. In the opinion of the Court, the PPO has properly analyzed the similarity of “R-Profit” and opposing “Profit” signs. Both signs should be compared in aural conceptual and phonetic aspects, bearing in mind that “R-Profit” is a word-figurative trade mark. According to the VAC, even though this case concenrs word and word-figurative trade marks, one may say that there exists graphic similarity, as “R-Profit” and “Profit” differ only by the letter “R” and the core of the two characters – “Profit” is identical. The VAC ruled that the argument that services in question have different distribution channels does not preclude the likelihood of confusion, because an average consumer may think that the service is derived from an entity that combines the organizational relationship and legal rights with the owner of “Profit” trade mark.
Raiffeisen Bank Polska S.A. filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 February 2007 case file II GSK 269/06 dissmised the case. The SAC held that the comparison of signs should be based on the general, overall impression, which compared trade marks have on the recipient, and thus if the dominant element in both signs are their common elements, there is a similarity between trade marks that is posing a risk of consumers confusion.
Categories: Art. 184 PBAC | Art. 315 IPL | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | homogenity of goods | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | similarity of services | similarity of signs | trade mark examination | trade mark refusal.