Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/10/27/7106/
Timestamp: 2019-05-24 19:04:17
Document Index: 523625200

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 145', 'Art. 152', 'Art. 164', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 80']

Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 875/11
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 875/11
October 27th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki
Juliusz Marek Nabiałek who owns the word-figurative trade mark Platan R-210901, filed a request for invalidation of the word-figurative trade mark PLATANUS OGRODY NATURALNE R-210602 registered for Przemysław Sochański. Mr. Nabiałek claimed that both signs are similar and cause the risk of misleading the public as to the origin of goods and services, especially since most goods and services are identical.
Mr. Sochański claimed that he cooperated with Mr. Nabiałek in years 2001-2005. He emphasized that Mr. Nabiałek, without his knowledge or consent registered the trade mark Platan in 1995, but it was the name of a company that was founded by Sochański. In March 2007, he learned about this registration when he was served with the cease and desist letter prohibiting the use of the name Platan. Therefore, Sochański applied on 15 March 2007, for the right of protection for PLATANUS OGRODY NATURALNE trade mark. Therefore, he thought that the request for invalidation is a malicious and solely personal action. Mr Nabiałek decided to narrow the request only for services in Class 42 such as services in architecture, biological research, advice on environment protection. The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right of protection. Sochański filed a complaint against this decision.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 3 October 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 875/11 overturned the decision of the Polish Patent Office and held it unenforceable. The Court ruled that both trade marks are not similar and the similarity of goods and services is reduced only to their common numbering according to the Nice Classification. The VAC ruled that there was violation of the provisions of the administrative procedure, because the PPO did not consider all of the evidence required to decide the case, and has not indicated why certain facts were accepted as proven, and why others were denied the credibility and probative value.
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 145 PBAC | Art. 152 PBAC | Art. 164 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 80 APC | similarity of goods | similarity of services | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | Voivodeship Administrative Court.