Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-industrial-property-law/art-1291ii-ipl/
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 11:49:22
Document Index: 698653718

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 130', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 131', 'Art. 256', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 131', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 107', '§1', 'Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 130', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 130', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 246', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 151', 'Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 130', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 107', '§1', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 133', '§1', 'Art. 141', '§4', 'Art. 151', 'Art. 174', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 131', 'Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 151', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 246', 'Art. 256', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 131', 'Art. 145', 'Art. 174', 'Art. 256', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 80', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 156', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 130', 'Art. 145', 'Art. 174', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 4', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 130', 'Art. 145', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 145', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 130', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 145', 'Art. 244', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 131', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 151', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 296', 'Art. 296', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 145', 'Art. 129', 'Art. 245']

Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL
Archive for: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL
Categories: acquired distinctiveness | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(i) IPL | Art. 130 IPL | non-traditional trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish institutions | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | single colour | trade mark examination | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1340/12
Categories: 3D trade mark | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(i) IPL | Art. 131(2)(i) IPL | Art. 256 IPL | non-traditional trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish institutions | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2032/11
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 131(1)(iii) IPL | descriptive character | distinctive character | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1806/11
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | descriptive character | distinctive character | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case II GSK 72/11
February 29th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki
On 25 May 2006, the Polish company AERECO Wentylacja Sp. z o.o. applied for the word-figurative trade mark HIGROSTEROWANIE Z-311192 for goods in Classes 07, 09, 11 and 35. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection, claiming that the applied sign does not have sufficient level of distinctive character. The PPO pointed out this trade mark is built from the core “sterowanie” (in English: controling/steering) and the prefix higro (English: hygro) which indicates a semantic link to the humidity. The sign that is created from these two elements, although not listed in dictionaries, is not a fanciful term and simply means “to regulate humidity”.
AERECO filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1117/10 dismissed it, and ruled that both in the legal commentaries and the case law of administrative courts, it is considered in particular, that the descriptive sign is one that has the characteristics of the topical, concrete and direct descriptiveness. The topicality of the signs should be assessed on the objective basis and consist of examining whether from the perspective of current market conditions, a sign is useful for description of the goods and if as such it should be accessible to all participants. The rule of concrete descriptiveness states that a sign which indicates the specific characteristics of the product for which the designation is intended may be exempted from the registration as descriptive one. The direct descriptiveness occurs when a descriptive sign informs directly, clearly and unambiguously about the characteristics of a particular goods, so that characteristics may be interpreted directly, and not by associations.
The Court shared the position of the PPO, that the the questioned sign simply means “controling humidity” and thus explicitly indicates the characteristics of the designated goods and can not be appropriated to describe the products or services of one company. The VAC did not find anything fanciful in the figurative element of the HIGROSTEROWANIE trade mark. ARECO filed a cassation complaint but it was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 29 February 2012 case file II GSK 72/11.
Categories: Art. 107 §1 APC | Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 130 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 80 APC | distinctive character | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | trade mark examination | trade mark refusal | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case II GSK 1033/10
Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | acquired distinctiveness | Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 130 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 8 APC | Art. 80 APC | descriptive character | distinctive character | generic sign | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | press title | secondary meaning | trade mark examination | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case II GSK 1346/10
December 13th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark BIO-ACTIVE R-169823, in part for goods in Class 3, i.e. body care cosmetics. The owner BIO-ACTIVE DYSTRYBUCJA Sp. z o.o. filed a complaint against this decision.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 19 April 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 109/10 upheld the questioned decision and ruled that a trade mark consisting exclusively of informational signs that are normally used to designate the type of goods or services, even if those signs are in a language other than Polish, is not registrable. The Court also noted that the disputed trade mark is the so-called “internationalism”, that is a sign, which is present in other languages in almost identical form. In different languages it has the same meaning, construction reading and tone. As a result of the granting of the right of protection to the trade mark in question, all cosmetics producers except the owner were deprived of the opportunity to introduce to the market of all products bearing the term containing given information, and consumers could not be adequately informed about the characteristics of these products.
BIO-ACTIVE DYSTRYBUCJA Sp. z o.o. filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 December 2011 case file II GSK 1346/10 dismissed it. The SAC ruled that widespread availability of descriptive signs and indications is in the public interest.
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(iii) IPL | Art. 246 IPL | Art. 77 APC | Art. 80 APC | distinctive character | generic sign | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | trade mark invalidation | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1291/11
Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | acquired distinctiveness | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(i) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 151 PBAC | descriptive character | distinctive character | domain names | e-law issues | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish TLDs | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 562/11
November 4th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki
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. Trade mark law, case II GSK 466/10
Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | Art. 107 §1 APC | Art. 120(1) IPL | Art. 120(2) IPL | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(i) IPL | Art. 133 §1 PBAC | Art. 141 §4 PBAC | Art. 151 PBAC | Art. 174 PBAC | Art. 3(1)(b) Directive 89/104 | Art. 5(2) Madrid Agreement | Art. 6quinquies Paris Convention | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 8 APC | Art. 80 APC | Directive 89/104/EEC | distinctive character | International law | non-traditional trade marks | Paris Convention | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | single colour | trade mark refusal | trademark law. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 86/11
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 131(2)(i) IPL | bad faith | descriptive character | distinctive character | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1090/10
January 20th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki
Polish entrepreneur “MALWA” Tea Wojciech Fabisiak from Lubiszyn applied for the right of protection for FITO APTEKA Z-327704 trade mark for goods in Classes 05, 30, 35 and 39 such as medicinal tea, medicinal drinks, medicinal herbs, tinctures of herbs for medicinal purposes, extracts of herbs for medicinal purposes, herbal tea, medicinal herbs, dried herbs, herbal mixtures for medical purposes, tea, ice tea, fruit tea, instant tea, coffee, coffee substitute, coffee substitute vegetable preparations, retail services and/or wholesale to third parties in the field of herbs, packaging of herbs, tea packaging. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection. The PPO found that the sign in question contains two verbal elements “Fito” and “Apteka”. The word “fito” according to the Dictionary of Foreign Words PWN (published by PWN, in 1993) is a first element of compound words that are denoting plants, for plants (from Greek “phyton” – plant). The word “Apteka” (in English: pharmacy) indicates the type of store where drugs are sold or made, as well as herbs, some cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, herbal teas, coffee. The PPO ruled that the applied signs lacks distinctive character. MALWA filed a complaint against this decision.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 17 November 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 1090/10 dismissed it. The VAC agreed with the PPO and held that the trade mark is devoid of distinctive character, where the words making up the sign in question have their specific meaning, both alone and in combination. The trade mark should provide information on the origin of goods from a particular manufacturer, and no information about the type of goods. The Court ruled that in case of word trade marks the criteria for granting a right of protection are much stricter than for word-figurative trade marks (combined signs) due to less room for maneuver for other businesses wanting to use a given word. The registration of a word trade mark, which lacks fanciful elements, but consist of a generic name, may unreasonably restrict the right of other entrepreneurs to describe their products.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 120(1) IPL | Art. 120(2) IPL | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 151 PBAC | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 80 APC | descriptive character | distinctive character | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1056/10
January 18th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki
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. Trade mark law, case II GSK 903/09
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 131(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 145 PBAC | Art. 174 PBAC | Art. 256 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 80 APC | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish Supreme Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 501/10
Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | Art. 120(1) IPL | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(i) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 132(3) IPL | Art. 156 IPL | distinctive character | trade mark examination | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case II GSK 691/09
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 130 IPL | Art. 145 PBAC | Art. 174 PBAC | distinctive character | geographical name as trade mark | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | product packaging | trade mark examination. Trade mark law, case II GSK 607/09
August 31st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki
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.
1. Subject to paragraph (2), where the Patent Office finds that the statutory requirements for the grant of a right of protection for a trademark have not been satisfied, it shall make a decision on refusal to grant the right.
2. Before the decision referred to in paragraph (1) is made, the Patent Office shall fix a time limit, within which the applicant is invited to react on the collected evidences and documents which imply the existence of grounds that may cause the right of protection to be denied.
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.
Public administration bodies shall uphold the rule of law during proceedings and shall 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. Article 77.
§ 1. The public administration body is required to comprehensively collect and examine all evidential material.
§ 2. At each stage of proceedings a body can amend, supplement or withdraw rulings made regarding the examination of evidence.
§ 3. An body conducting proceedings as a result of having been required to do so by the body having jurisdiction to settle the case (Article 52) may, on an ex officio basis or on application by one of the parties, hear new witnesses or experts on circumstances that form the objects of such proceedings.
§ 4. Universally accepted facts and facts known to the body ex officio do not require proof. Parties to proceedings should be informed of facts that are known to the body.
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. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 369/10
Categories: acquired distinctiveness | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 145 IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | secondary meaning | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 274/10
Categories: acquired distinctiveness | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 130 IPL | case law | distinctive character | secondary meaning | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case II GSK 214/09
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. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1144/08
October 17th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 25 September 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1144/08, published in LEX under the no. 513878, held that the descriptiveness of a trade mark is the sole and direct information which indicates the characteristic of the goods. The signs are not deemed as descriptive if in only through indirect conclusion can be considered as a determination of such features. This case concerned the examinations proceedings of the trade mark telepizzeria Z-284471 that was applied for by the Polish company BONO A. MAZUREK Spółka Jawna for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 43.
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 145 PBAC | Art. 244 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | descriptive character | distinctive character | trade mark examination | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1655/08
August 27th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
On 7 February 2003, Browar Belgia Sp. z o.o. from Kielce applied to register the word trade mark GINGERS Z-260753 for goods such as beer, beer-based drinks, juices, syrups, essences for making beverages, soft drinks, preparations for the production and manufacture of beverages, extracts and extracts of hop in class 32.
In a letter dated 14 May 2004, the Polish Patent Office informed the applicant that there was an obstacle to granting the right of protection for GINGERS mark, since it is an informative sign which has insufficient distinctive character to enable it to distinguish the products of one undertaking from other companies, under normal market conditions.
In its letter of 14 June 2004 Browar Belgia argued that, contrary to the assertion of the PPO, the name “gingers” associated with the list of goods covered by the application is not a generic term and does not perform only an informative function. Browar Belgia noted that the word “gingers” has multiple meanings in English language and can be understood as, inter alia, the colour red/red-headed and also as verve, the zest or liveness, and the word “ginger” is just one of many translations into Polish. The name GINGERS should also be regarded as fanciful because it has the “s” letter placed at the end of a word, while the noun “GINGER” is singular. Moreover, it is unreasonable to say that all consumers of beer and soft drinks in Poland speak fluent English and will associate English word with its counterpart in the Polish language, ie ginger.
In a letter of 17 October 2005, the PPO expressed the view based on articles 129(1)(ii), article 129(2)(i) and (ii) and article 131(1)(iii) 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 later amendments.
Article 129(2)(i) and (ii)
2. Subject to Article 130, the following shall be considered as being devoid of sufficient distinctive character:
(i) signs which are not capable of distinguishing, in trade, the goods for which they have been applied,
(ii) signs which consist exclusively or mainly of elements which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, origin, quality, quantity, value, intended purpose, manufacturing process, composition, function or usefulness of the goods,
Article 131(1)(iii)
(iii) which, as for their nature, may mislead the public, in particular as to the nature, properties of the goods or, with regard to paragraph (3), as to the geographic origin thereof,
The PPO noted that the mark applied for cannot be granted a right of protection due to the fact that the sign is informative for the majority of goods in class 32 and as for extracts and extracts of hops; it is a sign that it may mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of these goods. In its decision of 28 February 2007, the Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word trade mark GINGERS. The PPO noted that granting the right of protection for GINGERS word trade mark in favor of one entrepreneur would limit freedom of business activity of other market participants in the process of producing and marketing of these goods and thus hamper the business activities of other entities.
In a letter dated 11 May 2007, Browar Belgia requested a retrial, calling for the reversal of the contested decision. According to Browar Belgia, granting the right of protection for GINGERS trade mark would not limit anyone from the possibility of providing, for example, the composition of beer on the label in place designated for that purpose, but this does not mean that the composition of beer, to be specific the content of the component, is a passport to putting GINGERS into other trade marks. It was an unacceptable situation in which another party would benefit from the reputation of the trade Gingers, that was promoted by a very expensive advertising campaign. In the meantime, Browar Belgia transferred the right to trade mark application GINGERS Z-260753 to Kompania Piwowarska S.A. from Poznań. In a decision of 30 May 2008, the PPO upheld in entirety its previous decision of 2007. Browar Belgia filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw and Kompania Piwowarska joined the case.
The VAC in its judgment of 17 February 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1655/08 dismissed the complaint and ruled that the principle of free access for all traders to signs that serve to communicate information about the nature of goods, their characteristics or properties does not allow for their monopolization by a single market participant.
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 131(1)(iii) IPL | generic sign | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case II GSK 905/08
July 28th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
On June 2006, the Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for a 3D trade mark Z-255004, that was applied for in September 2002 by Polish company “BARTEX – Bartol” Spólka jawna from Paproc. The reason was that the applied sign was similar to 3D trade mark IR-676508, registered under the Madrid Agreement with a priority of April 1997 for Bacardi & Company Limited for goods in class 33, such as alcoholic beverages.
In October 2007, after re-hearing the case, the PPO upheld its decision of June 2006 on the grounds that the assessment of similarity between both signs should be based on the overall impression both marks have on the consumer.
According to the PPO the distinguishing strength of the disputed signs should be taken into account, including its distinctive and dominant components. As usual, both trade marks should be compared in three aspects: visual, aural and conceptual. The PPO deemed both marks as “weak trade marks”. However, the PPO also noted that the 3D trade mark owned by Baccardi posses some features that are not common and are not reproduced in other 3D forms of bottles. The most distinctive element is the characteristic cut on both sides of the bottle. Along with all the rest it gives a unique shape to the bottle. Thus, in the assessment made by the PPO, the earlier trade mark as a whole had the distinctive character which allowed the PPO to issue a positive decision on the recognition on the territory of the Republic of Poland of the protection for the international trademark.
While deciding on the application made by the Polish Company, the PPO came to the conclusion that the differences between disputed trade marks are not so noticeable and the risk of confusion by the average consumer of such goods is significant.
As regards the Polish company’s argument that it should be taken into account the fact that alcohol is almost always sold in the bottle that has a label, the PPO said that it is possible to imagine a situation that the applied trade mark will have in the future a label which is an imitation of an earlier trade mark. The Polish Patent Ooffice pointed out that, if looked at the specific conditions of trade it should take into account the way in which the applicant puts its goods on the market. Some information regarding this issue were presented in the observations filed by Bacardi on 26 August 2003 as to the existence of grounds that may cause a right of protection to be denied in connection with the application Z-255004. These materials proved that the Polish company markets products that are the imitation of alcohol produced Baccardi.
BARTEX – Bartol filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. The VAC in its judgment of 28 April 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 126/08 ruled that while deciding whether the right of protection may be granted it must be determined whether a sign may serve as a trade mark at all. Only after having determined that a sign may be a trade mark it shall be examined whether such sign has sufficiently distinctive characteristics, to check out whether a sign is capable to distinguish on the market the specific goods for which it was applied for.
The VAC based its holding on article 129(1)(ii) 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 later amendments.
The lack of distinctive character is an absolute obstacle to trade mark registration, however, characters devoid of this charateristics can acquire it as a result of use. The distinctive character of a trade mark is fitted with such features, which in the minds of consumers it clearly indicate that the goods identified by it come from the specific company. The court cited doctrinal approach to the distinctiveness of a trade mark (a book by professor Urszula Prominska entitled Prawo wlasnosci przemyslowej published by Difin, Warszawa 2005, edt. II, p. 211). The assessment of a distinctive character is the result of two quite different elements. On the one hand, the way/form a trade mark is presented must be “itself” so distinctive that it can identify the goods. On the other hand, it must provide the consumer with a possibility to choose goods based on that way/form without the necessity of determining the origin of goods indirectly (eg. when the consumer is forced to look at the product manufacturer’s name). In examining signs that cannot distinguish the goods, it should be noted that such sign does not posses any characteristics in its tructure thus such sign as a whole is devoid of a sufficient distinctive characteristics and it is not suitable for the identification of goods, and therefore is does not have the ability to distinguish its origin. This is a category of signs that emerged of its structural features (such as a form which is the representation of the product, its generic name, etc.). The court rejected the complaint.
The cassation complaint was rejected in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 May 2009, case file II GSK 905/08.
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | case law | distinctive character | non-traditional trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | secondary meaning | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1000/08
In the decision of 4 February 2005, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark Glazide in class 5 for goods such as anti-diabetic pharmaceutical preparations, for Farmaceutyczna Spółdzielnia Prac Galena from Wrocław. Les Laboratoires Servier from France filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection based on articles 129(1)(ii) and 129(2)(ii) 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.
Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | acquired distinctiveness | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | distinctive character | generic sign | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish law | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1620/08
On 22 January 2003, the Spanish company Aceites del Sur-Soosur S.A. applied to the Polish Patent Office to register the word trade mark LA ESPANOLA Z-260063 in class 29 for goods such as edible oils and fats. The PPO rejected this trade mark application, justifying its decision case file DT-51/08 on the basis of Article 129(1)(ii) and Article 129(2)(ii) 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.
(ii) are devoid of sufficient distinctive character
The representative of the Spanish company claimed that Aceites del Sur-Soosur had a long tradition in the production of such goods and is well-known in many countries, and that there is also a CTM registration for the word-figurative trade mark LA ESPANOLA CTM no. 000132092, however, the PPO found that the sign indicated the word origin of goods from Spain. In its original language it means “the Spanish” or “Spain”. And in PPO’s opinion Spain is also famous for production of goods of this type, such as oils. Aceites del Sur-Soosur filed a complaint before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw but the VAC in its judgment of 18 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1620/08 fully agreed with the Polish Patent Office and stressed the fact that such sign, while presented without any graphic element, has purely-for-information status, which points to the place of origin of goods imported from Spain.
Categories: absolute grounds for refusal | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(i) IPL | descriptive character | distinctive character | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 262/08
June 17th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 April 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 262/08, published in LEX under the no. 512901, held that the interests of all market participants must also taken into account when examining the registrability of a trade mark. The grant of the right of protection for a trade mark cannot lead for the monopolization by one entrepreneur of signs that are in the public domain. This case concerned the examination proceedings of the word trade mark polbar Z-278236 that was applied for by Akademia Rolnicza from Lublin. The word “polbar” is used as the name of the hens’ breed.
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 151 PBAC | descriptive character | trade mark examination | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case III CSK 300/06
Categories: Art. 120(1) IPL | Art. 120(2) IPL | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 296(1) IPL | Art. 296(2)(ii) IPL | descriptive character | distinctive character | Polish Supreme Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 227/07
September 15th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 April 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 227/07 interpreted the provisions of Article 129(2)(ii) 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.
The Court ruled that Article 129(2)(ii) of the IPL, refers to purely descriptive signs, i.e., characters that the direct and sole function is to provide information about the goods and not on its origin. The distinctiveness of the mark is the fact that the sole and direct information is information which indicates the characteristic of the goods. These signs that may constitute a determination of such characteristics only in a way of indirect conclusion, do not have the descriptive nature. The promotional message of the sign never itself makes it non distinctive, as well as the unoriginal slogan does not decide by itself about the lack of its distinctiveness. This case concerned the registration proceedings of word trade mark “ZAKUPY U NAS WEJDĄ CI W KREW” R-219731 (in English: Shopping with us you will come in the blood) owned by Polish company RAMPEX K. Termin T. Termin Spółka Jawna from Tychy.
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 129(2)(iii) IPL | Art. 145 IPL | distinctive character | trade mark examination | trade mark refusal | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1420/06
November 11th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 31 October 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1420/06 held that while examining whether the rights of protection may be granted, it should be determined whether a sign could serve as a trademark at all. Only after it was decided that a sign could be a trademark, one should examine whether a mark is sufficiently distinctive and therefore to check whether the sign is suitable for distinguishing the specific goods in trade, to designate of which it has been applied for. The lack of distinctive character of a trade mark is considered as the absolute grounds for refusal to trade mark registration, but a sign may acquire distinctive character as a result of use.
The Court found it difficult to say that red color combined with different kinds of equipment and tools, or accessories used in construction is something extraordinary, unique and unprecedented, which could stick decisively in the memory and let the consumer individualize the goods in the market among the goods of the same type but originating from different companies. This judgment concerned separate Color RED Pantone C32, IR-803195.
Categories: Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 245 IPL | distinctive character | non-traditional trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | single colour | trade mark examination | trade mark refusal | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Rychlicki.net - your news on Polish IT and IP law