Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-trade-marks/art-91i-tma/
Timestamp: 2019-03-21 01:20:35
Document Index: 355516965

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 9', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 151', 'Art. 153', 'Art. 164', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 184', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 315', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 107', '§3', 'Art. 145', 'Art. 246', 'Art. 29', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9']

Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » Art. 9(1)(i) TMA
Archive for: Art. 9(1)(i) TMA
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2041/11
February 15th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki
Sfinks Polska S.A. requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the rights of protection for word-figurative trade mark CLEOPATRA R-153234 owned by Restauracja CLEOPATRA Bachar Aziz from Lublin. Sfinks Polska owns earlier registered word-figurative trade mark SPHINX R-105162.
Sfinks claimed that the trade mark CLEOPATRA R-153234 is similar to its trade mark and argued that it has legal interest in this proceedings as there is a possibility of misleading customers based on the similarity of trade marks. This could be particularly applicable considering the fact that SPHINX trade mark is already known on the market and, therefore, it has a stronger distinctive ability. Sfinks also argued that Bachar Aziz filed its trade mark in bad faith with an intent to use the reputation of Sfinks’ trade marks by suggesting a common origin from a single entity.
The Polish Patent Office dismissed the request and decided that the trade marks, in this case, are different in all aspects. Sfinks Polska S.A. filed a complaint against this decision.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 December 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 112/11 dismissed it. The Court held that the PPO correctly decided that there are visible differences in both signs. The VAC also ruled that the application for a trade in bad faith may occur in a situation in which the applicant is linked with the owner of the earlier sign with a special relationship of trust resulting, for example, from cooperation contracts or agreements. The trade mark can be filed in bad faith in order to acquire a financial extortion from the owner of an earlier sign, or to gain control of that entity, or to force the conclusion of the license agreement, etc. The trade mark can be also filed in bad faith with the intention to block the use of the prior sign or in order to acquire of the market position of the holder of the earlier mark. However, the allegation of bad faith trade mark application has not been proven by Sfinks Polska S.A.
See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 112/11“.
Categories: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 151 PBAC | Art. 153 IPL | Art. 164 IPL | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | bad faith | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish courts | Polish law | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 259/10
April 7th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki
Mariusz Lech Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Uslugowe LECH-POL from Lask requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the word trade mark “lech wódka” R-145285 registered for Fabryka Wódek POLMOS ŁAŃCUT S.A. for goods in class 33 such as alcoholic beverages: vodka. Mariusz Lech argued that the questioned trade mark is confusingly similar to his word-figurative trade mark LECH-POL R-132854 and the word trade mark “mariusz lech” R-113305, both registered for good in class 33 such as alcoholic beverages.
The PPO dismissed the request and noted that Mr Lech’s trade mark were not genuinely used for all goods. In 2007 the PPO decided on the lapse of the protection rights for both trade marks in all goods except wines, this cases went through all instances. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 708/08“. Therefore, the compared goods are different due to existing specialization in the alcohol industry and the awareness of that specialization among potential customers is also important, because the average buyer is aware that the vodka manufacturer does not produce wine, and vice versa. These trade marks may exist on the market without collision. Mariusz Lech filed a complaint against this decision but it was dismissed by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 October 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1050/09. LECH-POL decided to file a cassation complaint.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 February 2011 case file II GSK 259/10 dismissed it. The SAC ruled that the conditions of production of wines and vodka are different. The packagings and sealing of such goods differs and there are different conditions of sale of such products. Vodka in not sold in the wineries, and in case when both types of goods are in a shop, (usually displayed on different shelves in malls), their location is clearly separable. The development of shopping centers and various self-service shops of retail chains, makes the criterion of sales conditions less important when it is used for assessing the similarity of the goods. The Court noted that vodka and wine, because of varying alcohol content, must be treated as different types of alcoholic beverages, which is also reflected in the provisions the Polish Act on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism of 26 October 1982 and the permits that are granted under this Act for trade and service of alcoholic beverages are issued separately for each kind of beverage from a separate pool of permissions. The Court also ruled that the incidental possibility that the producer of wines and spirits is the same entity does not lead to the conclusion that these beverages are of one type.
Categories: Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | genuine use | likelihood of confusion | non-use | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trade mark lapse | trade mark use | trademark law.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 619/09
December 24th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 4 November 2010 case file II GSK 619/09 ruled that weak distinctive characteristics of trade marks at issue, obviously did not justify, the infringement of these rights. Nevertheless, the proprietor of the mark mark with weak distinctive characteristics, and this is due to the reduction in this sign to presence of informational elements, has to tolerate the existence of a competitive trade marks, containing similar elements that have informational nature. The limit of that tolerance is the similarity of opposing signs, if it could mislead the purchaser of the goods.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | trade mark examination | trade mark refusal | trademark law.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 344/09
April 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki
This is the continuation of the history described in the post entitled “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1388/07“.
The Polish Patent Office (PPO) and the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) ruled that EAU DE TOKYO trade mark is totally dissimilar to KENZO or to L’eau par Kenzo trade marks. The mere fact of the use of the word eau did not predict similarity of questioned signs, because the word as part of the expression of eau de toilette, in relation to cosmetics does not have any distinctive character. The PPO and the VAC did not agree with arguments that MGT Parfum Création wanted to use the reputation that was understood as the good name of KENZO.
According to the PPO and the VAC, the use of packaging that is confusingly similar to the packaging used by KENZO could only give rise to claims of delict of unfair competition which is decided in the civil proceedings. The very fact of any dishonest conduct of the holder of the disputed registration cannot be interpreted that the trade mark application has been made in bad faith. Even if the court agreed that events which took place in 2006, i.e. MGT actions based on producing EAU DE TOKYO packaging that looked alike L’eau par Kenzo perfumes, and advertising of its products with “the type of Kenzo perfume” slogan, could raise doubts about compliance of such actions with the rules of fair competition, but these were not sufficient facts to consider that in 2000, MGT had the intention to act dishonestly – in bad faith.
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) in a judgment of 26 January 2010,case file II GSK 344/09, ruled that the PPO has properly established and the VAC correctly agreed to facts, that at the time of application for the protection right for EAU DE TOKYO R-153843 trade mark, the bad faith could not be attributed to MGT Parfum Création.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | bad faith | case law | Polish Patent Office | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | trade mark invalidation.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1988/09
Categories: Art. 132(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 132(2)(iii) IPL | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | bad faith | case law | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Patent Office | reputed trade marks | similarity of signs | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1074/06
March 16th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki
I was so fascinated with the use of the law of prägnanz by the Polish court that I decided to look for something more. I was very surprised with my discovery.
On 24 October 2004, Diesel Company, seated in Molvena, Italy filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to DSL R-148054 trade mark. According to Diesel S.p.A., DSL R-148054 trade mark was similar to DIESEL R-73457 and DIESEL IR-608499 trade marks. The Polish Patent Office in a decision of 9 January 2006, no. Sp.88/05, rejected the opposition. Diesel Company filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The VAC in judgment of 16 November 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1074/06, said the following.
It should be noted that one can manipulate the external context, and by influencing the human experience, one can manipulate the internal context. The law of proximity states that elements close to each other compared with other, more distant elements form the figure. The law of similarity based on the law of proximity in relation to similar elements, indicates that human perception can give rise to a new separate figures, and a new association. Next, the law of closure indicates that the perceptual system adds the missing elements and closes the form of incomplete figures. It should be noted that the human being creates the perceived reality based on the interaction of knowledge that flows from the various branches and experience, with received stimuli. So it may be, in this case. Human knowledge derived from other branches of science may “complete” the lack in the designation and close this sign. Thus, the internal context may allow for the law of closure, i.e. for the full reading of the meaning of the word. In turn, the law of symmetry with the use of the simplicity of perception of an object can lead to the fact that elements close to each other, form a mild integrity and the independent shape.
In this case, the VAC correctly quoted its source. These are excerpts from A. Falkowski, T. Tyszka Psychologia zachowań konsumenckich, (in English: Psychology of Consumer Behavior), Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Pedagogiczne, pp. 24-26.
Categories: Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | case law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Patent Office | similarity of signs | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Procedural law, case VI SA/Wa 2094/06
Categories: Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | likelihood of confusion | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys | Polish courts | Polish institutions | Polish law | Polish patent attorneys | Polish Patent Office | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trade mark opposition | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 897/09
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 October 2009 VI SA/Wa 897/09 held that the company name (firm) serves as the identification and prominence of the entrepreneur in the legal and economic transactions. It is also a carrier of certain information about the characteristics and qualities of business conducted by such entrepreneur. An unauthorized interference with the function of a company name infringes on the right to the name. The company name, also of the civil partnership, is a personal interests/asset of the company and relates to its identity when it individualize such entrepreneur. The firm/company name is subject to protection of personal rights/intrests under Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 43 10 of the Civil Code.
The Court ruled that the company name (firm) is the absolute personal right, effective erga omnes, and enjoyed by everyone including businesses and individuals that do business in the form of civil partnership. The right to a company name is formed with the entry of the entrepreneur in the business register, and in any event, when the company used for the first time in trade. Entrepreneurs may claim the right to the company name (the firm) after they have been registered in the Register of Entrepreneurs in the National Court Register or in the Economic Activity Records. The disclosure of trade name/company’s name is provided in the registry (National Court Register – Polish public register maintained by the selected regional courts and the Ministry of Justice which includes the register of enterprises). It has a declaratory nature. The Economic Activity Records are maintained by the municipality of the place of residence of the entrepreneur.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 January 2008 case file II GSK 298/07 held that the right of the company name is infringed if the registration of a trade mark conflicts and interferes with the exercise of the right to company name. See “Trade mark law, II GSK 298/07“. This conflict is based on misleading as to the identity of entities (acting under the company name and using the trade mark) and therefore it may jeopardize the company name (firm). Such conclusions were reached by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 26 April 2006 case file II GSK 31/06.
This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of word-figurative trade mark PIOR R-143502 owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Usługowo-Handlowo-Reklamowe PRIOR, Rostkowska Janina, Rostkowski Jan, Kuc Małgorzata from Chorzów.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | bad faith | company name or firm | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Trade marks | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark and Press law, VI SA/Wa 2135/08
On March 2003, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark 1000 Jolek R-142003 for Oraczewski Roman Oficyna Wydawnicza PRESS-MEDIA from Mielec for goods in Class 16 such as magazines, brochures, crosswords, periodicals.
On October 2003, Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o. o. from Częstochowa filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for the trade mark 1000 Jolek R-142003. Technopol based its opposition on articles 9(1)(i) and 8(1) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments.
(1) Registration of a trade mark for goods of the same kind shall not be permissible where:
i) it resembles a mark registered on behalf of another enterprise to such an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity
i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence.
Technopol argued that 1000 Jolek was similar to a series of crosswords periodicals which include magazines marked by a noticeable number in conjunction with the word “panoramic” (in Polish: panoramiczny), i.e. trade marks such as 100 PANORAMICZNYCH R-109471, 200 PANORAMICZNYCH R-105389, or 1000 PANORAM R-126399. According to Technopol, the disputed trade mark duplicated the distinctive element of Technopol’s marks – the form of a numeric element. In Technopol’s view, if the word “Jolki” is omitted it only remains a white figure on a red background. In this situation, the average recipient will identify this sign with a series of Technopol’s publications which have been known for many years. Technopole emphasized that it was the leader in the market for crossword magazines publishing that started in 1994 by introducing the first issue of crossword magazine 100 PANORAMICZNYCH (100 Panoramic). Then Oraczewski began to compete with Technopole by puting on the market crossword magazines entitled in an identical manner, where the leading element a multiple number of 100 was exposed, and the numbers were connected with the word “panoramic” or “crosswords”. According to Technopol, the success of its titles lay precisely in the simplicity of communicating with its customers; Oraczewski took advantage of Technopol’s success in creating of such excellent titles. Technopol also argued that its signs make the so-called “family”, a series of trade marks used to mark Poland’s most popular series of games magazines, which can be more easily identfied through the common element – the number “100” or its multiples, which is also perceived by the public as information about the goods originating from the same company.
PRESS-MEDIA argued that the disputed trade mark is descriptive in its phonetic aspect, since the number “1000” combined with the word “Jolek (which defines the type of crossword) causes the trade mark to lack concrete distinctive character. Crucial for the distinctive character of the disputed trade mark is its graphics consisting of the maroon background, the composition of the number 1000 and “Jolek” which are written in fanciful font. PRESS-MEDIA also argued that digits (numbers) only, as well as numbers with words such as “crosswords”, “panoramic”, “panorama”, “sudoku” are purely informational signs with regard to journals with crosswords and other logical exercises. These signs inform of the quantity and/or types of logical exercises/crosswords available in a magazine/publication. PRESS-MEDIA also mentioned that OHIM has repeatedly refused to grant to Technopol trade mark registrations for numbers as trade marks for goods in class 16. See CTM applications such as 150 no. 00466549, 250 no. 004665592, 350 no. 004665601, 222 no. 004665618, 333 no. 004665683, 555 no. 004665709 and Community Trade Marks such as 100 SUDOKU no. 004635711 and 200 SUDOKU no. 004635736. In its decision of April 2009, the PPO rejected Technopol’s oppostion. The company filed a complaint.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 February 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2135/08 ruled that the protection of a press title which is also a trade mark for a crossword magazine does not exclude the possibility of obtaining the right of protection by another entrepreneur for the press title containing the same elements (numbers), if these signs can be easily distinguished in the trade. The provisions included in article 132(4) 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, permit a convergence of these elements, which on the press-market are in a common use, which also excludes the possibility of monopolisation of the use of such phrases.
3. The protection of a trade mark which contains the signs referred to in Article 131(2)(ii)-(iv) and the symbols referred to in Article 131(2)(v), or signs which relate to the origin of the goods, shall not prevent a trade mark containing the same elements from being granted a right of protection on behalf of another undertaking for identical or similar goods, provided that the both trade marks remain easily distinguishable in the course of trade.
4. Paragraph (3) shall apply accordingly to press-titles as trade marks that contain words or combinations of words customary used in the press-market.
What is more interesting the Polish court acknowledged that this rule is also reflected in the foreign case-law concerning conflicts of trade marks and press titles and pointed out to two judgments of the German Bundesgerichtshof of 1 March 2001, case act signatures I ZR 211/98 and I ZR 205/98, that concerned TAGESSCHAU and TEGESBILD trade marks and TAGESSCHAU and TAGESREPORT trade marks, (AfP of 2001 r., no 5, pp. 385, 389). The judgment is not final and a cassation complaint has been filed.
Categories: Art. 132(4) IPL | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | distinctive character | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | press law | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1483/08
June 23rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
On September 2006, the Polish Patent Office issued a decision invalidating the right of protection of the BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 trade mark, owned by Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH from Hamburg, Germany. The PPO ruled that the registration of the disputed mark occurred in violation of article 8(2) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 1985, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 1985 No 5, itme 15, with later amendments.
It was indisputable for the PPO that BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 consists of the “BOSS” sign, which was written in black, this being the only element of BOSS R-66417 trade mark and the main element of other signs: HUGO BOSS R-66418, BOSS HUGO BOSS IR-584899 and BOSS IR-606620 which are owned by HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG from Metzingen, Germany.
Reemtsma filed a complaint before the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The court rejected the complaint in its judgment of 4 September 2007, case file VI SA/WA 2195/06. Reemtsma filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC agreed with Reemtsma’s arguments that the PPO did not explain the facts accurately and did not thoroughly conside the entire evidence. The case was sent back to the VAC. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07“
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 6 February 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1483/08 annulled the contested decision of the PPO and decided that the decision was not subject to execution. The VAC also stressed the fact that it is necessary to distinguish the renown of an entrepreneur – its good reputation and positive image – from the trade mark’s reputation (renown). In the case of the reputation (renown) of a trade mark – the subject of positive perceptions is the mark itself and the goods identified by such mark as originating from a particular business, and the reputation of the entrepreneur is generally positive perceptions and assessments about the business.
The case went back to the PPO. However, the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 15 October 2010 case Sp. 255/09 invalidated the right of protection for the BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 trade mark. This time, the PPO found that the trade mark in question is confusingly similar to BOSS HUGO BOSS IR-584899 and BOSS IR-606620 trade marks, and these findings were justified by the literal interpretation of the provisions of Article 9(1)(iii) of the TMA.
Categories: Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | case law | famous trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 251/08
January 18th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Supreme Administrative court in its judgment of 24 June 2008 case file II GSK 251/08 ruled that due to the fact that the trade mark MILKA that was invoked against the trade mark MIKLA R-148766 registered for goods in Classes 12 and 30, is a word trade mark, its use can manifest itself in a way that was chosen by the owner, which means that the holder may impose it on goods but not in any contradiction of the conditions afforded by the right of protection. The trade mark holder may, therefore, by marking the goods for which the sign received protection, to use a word trade mark by incorporating it in other registered trade mark, or to join it with the elements known and belonging to other sign.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark opposition | trade mark use | trademark law.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1388/07
On 11 May 2004, the Polish Patent Office issued a positive decision on the registration of EAU DE TOKYO R-153843 trade mark for goods in Class 3. It was applied for by the MGT Parfum Création from Hofheim-Wallau on 7 September 2000.
Kenzo Societe Anonyme from France filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection claiming it was granted in violation of the provisions of Articles 8(1) and 9(1)(i) of the old Polish Act of 31 January 1985 on Trade Marks – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments.
i) it resembles a mark registered on behalf of another enterprise to such an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;
The request had to be based on the old Act because the trade mark application was filed while the old act was in force. KENZO was claiming the similarity of marks, KENZO TOKYO BY KENZO R-207663 and TOKYO BY KENZO R-207662 and their reputation. The French company has also argued that the German company imposes its trade mark on similar bottles to Kenzo’s bottles. On February 2007, the PPO rejected the invalidation request and KENZO has appealed this decision.
The German company did not respond to the correspondence on this matter and no other address was known. During earlier hearings on July 2008, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw had to ask the President Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys to designate a curator for the German company. The curator did not agree with KENZO arguments. He pointed that the assessment had to be a comparison of the signs as they were registered, and not the packaging.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 November 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1388/07 dismissed the complaint. The Court acknowledged the fact that the PPO did not negate the reputation of KENZO trade marks. According to the VAC, the PPO was not obliged to take into account KENZO’s reputation, since the Office found that the disputed signs were not similar. The Court did not agree with the argument that these signs had similar associations because cosmetics marked by them come from Japan. According to Judge Olga Żurawska-Matusiak such conclusion would be too far-reaching. She also pointed that the PPO has properly assessed both trade marks. The issue of passing off of packages should be decided by a civil court in a different proceedings.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | bad faith | case law | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys | Polish Patent Office | reputed trade marks | trade mark invalidation | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 361/06
December 12th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki
On 9 July 1998, the Polish company called “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL Spólka z o. o.” (PUTI) applied for trade mark reigstration for word-figurative sign “i INTEL” in class 37 for services such as: electric appliance installation and repair, fire alarm installation and repair, burglar alarm installation and repair, installation and repair of extinguishing and smoke ventilation systems, installation and repair of access control systems, and in class 38 for industrial television. The Polish Patent Office has granted the protection rights in its decision of 9 December 2002. On 21 July 2003, Intel Corporation has filed an opposition against the PPO’s decision. Since the trade mark application was filed while the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments, was in force, so the opposition had to be based on its article 8(1) and (2) and article 9(1)(i) and (ii).
(i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of society coexistence;
(ii) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties;
(1) Registration of a trademark for goods of the same kind shall not be permissible where:
(i) it resembles a mark registered on behalf of another enterprise to such an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;
(ii) it is similar to a trademark that is well known in Poland as a trademark for goods of another enterprise to an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;
To support its opposition, Intel Corp. has provided arguments that a sign is applied for or registered in contrary to the principles of society coexistence if it seeks to use or to undermine the reputation of other trade mark, regardless of the nature of the goods or services to which it refers. Intel Corp. successfully argued that Intel is word trade mark which is well-known and reputable. It is widely recognized and valued as a synonym for the highest quality products branded by this sign (or its derivatives) in the IT sector. The widespread knowledge of that trade was also confirmed in the Polish Patent Office’s decision in early 1994. The features and the highest quality of Intel brand products have also to be attributed to the Intel Inside trade mark because of its equally vast, global popularity and strong positive associations among customers. Intel R-93693 and Intel Inside R-86431 trade marks were registered in Poland in priority, respectively of 8 November 1990 and 18 June 1991.
“i Intel” is a sign which has a distinctive part consisting of Intel sign which is similar to Intel Copr. trade marks. It leads consumers to think that there is an association between Intel Corporation and a disputed sign, consequently, there is a risk of confusion as to the origin of goods or services which are identified by the disputed mark. According to Intel Corp., the use of the contested trade mark by PUTI was based on the reputation and the widely recognized quality of Intel trade mark. PUTI registration was made in favour of its marketing business and for the economic benefits of the Polish company. This kind of behavior also brings the risk of confusion among consumers as to the identity, trade and economic links and between Intel Corporation and PUTI. In addition, Intel Corporation has filed the explanatory memorandum arguing that “i Intel” sign violates the applicant’s personal rights. The firm (protected as personal rights under the Polish Civil Code) is the name under which Intel Corporation conducts its business, it is also the reputation of a company, to which the applicant has worked since 1968 (the establishment of Intel Corporation in the U.S.).
Since fields of business activities of PUTI and Intel Corp. did not overlap, The Polish firm argued that Intel Corp. had not demonstrated that the disputed trade mark makes difficult for Intel to use its company name. PUTI has also argued that the opposition should not be based on article 9 of the PTA since the disputed trade mark is designated for services not goods. PUTI argued that it has been using the name “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL” in 1989 and 1990, which was before Intel Corporation had registered its trade marks in Poland.
The Polish Patent Office invalidated “i Intel” trade mark in its decision of 19 October 2005. It was proved before the PPO that PUTI was founded on 23 July 1997 as a limited liability company, and previously (from 1 November 1983) it had operated on the market in the form of a civil company and the name Intel had been used for the first time in its firm in 1994. In PPO’s opinion, PUTI’s use of “i Intel” sign with ® before trade mark registration was granted was also a proof of taking the advantage of reputation of Intel Corp. trade marks, which was contrary to the principles of society coexistence that were defined in this case as a matter of fairness trade.
PUTI appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 April 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 126/06 dismissed the appeal. The court held that trade marks of Intel Corp. that were registered with the earlier priority are renowned in Poland in relation to the persons involved in electronics, computers, electrical and electronic equipment of various kinds, and PUTI’s application for the contested trade mark was intended to use the reputation of Intel Corp. trade mark portfolio. In court’s opinion the Polish Patent Office has had to compare these trade marks with the disputed sign in aural verbal and visual aspects and it has reasonably concluded that there is a clear likeness between them, and given that the signs are used for determining goods, which are compatible with regard to services to which the disputed trade mark is intended use, so there was a condition for the inadmissibility of the disputed trade mark registration within the meaning of article 9.
PUTI filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court. However, the Court dismissed the case in its judgment of 15 May 2007 case file II GSK 361/06. SAC explicitly held that Intel is well-known trade mark on the Polish market (strong sign) and its reputation was not questioned even by the Polish company. Consequently, it should be considered that the danger of confusion between trade marks by customers, is the greater, the more well-known (or as the Court also said – standardized) is a trade mark with an earlier priority, because customers’ memory directs them in a particulary easy way, to trade marks which are well-known on the market.
Categories: Art. 184 PBAC | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | company name or firm | famous trade marks | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | trade mark infringement | trademark law | well known trade marks.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 390/08
September 8th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki
RSX Company from Katowice applied for and was granted trade mark protection for word trade mark MERCI on 4 September 2003, R-146586. The sign covered substitutes for coffee and coffee-based beverages as provided in class 30.
August Storck KG, the manufacturer of MERCI chocolates from Germany, filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection of the RSX trade mark. August Storck has owned the MERCI word trade mark R-68903 protected in Poland since 1990, also in class 30 (cocoa, chocolate, sweets). The decision on registration was issued by the Polish Patent Office on 4 March 1992. August Storck also registered a MERCI word-figurative trade mark in Poland, based on the Madrid Agreement’s provisions, IR-0728855.
The German company alleged during the invaidation proeceedings that between those two signs there exists a risk of collision. Originally, the Polish Patent office ruled that there was no chance of such risk, because the goods were different, namely, coffee and cocoa. Accordingly, the PPO rejected the opposition filed by August Storck.
The German Company appealed against the PPO’s decision to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. August Storck’s representative alleged that PPO has incorrectly analyzed the goods in question. The VAC agreed with this argument in its judgement of 13 October 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 895/06 and it annulled the PPO’s decision. The court emphasized the fact that there was no doubt that coffee and cocoa belonged to the same group of goods and that they were sold in the same stores. Coffee is a component of many chocolate products. In the court’s opinion, the PPO wrongly considered that these goods were not homogeneous. DAC also found that PPO improperly accepted that coffee and cocoa may be produced by different undertakings.
The case went back to the Polish Patent Office. RSX argued that coffee is a specific drink and no-one would connect it with cocoa, since they are not complementary goods. The RSX representative pointed that in one class the goods may be heterogeneous, for instance chewing gum and chocolate. However, the PPO in its decision of 28 August 2007 (Sp. 65/07) annulled the disputed mark. The Office held that in accordance with article 9(1)(1) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with later amendment, three conditions have to be fulfilled: the signs are identical or similar, homogeneity of goods, the possibility of leading a consumer into confusion as to the origin of goods. The PPO acknowledged in its decision that all three conditions were met.
This time RSX appealed the PPO’s decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 July 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 390/08 dismissed the complaint and ruled that PPO’s decision was this time correct. Coffee and cocoa are competitive products and the consumers overlap. Cocoa can be bought by a follower of coffee (not necessarily a person who drinks it), for example, as a gift for someone. Therefore, these are homogeneous goods.
Categories: Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | case law | likelihood of confusion | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Patent Office | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 506/07
July 30th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki
Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH from Hamburg registered the trade mark BOSS LIGHTS R-136520 in class 34 for goods such as tobacco, tobacco products, smokers’ articles, cigarettes, cigarillos, matches. The owner of the following trade marks: BOSS R-66417, registered for goods in classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 28, HUGO BOSS R-66418, registered for goods in classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 34, BOSS HUGO BOSS R-156696, registered for goods in class 34 and the word-figurative mark BOSS R-82792 filed before the Polish Patent Office a request for the invalidation of the right of protection for the trade mark BOSS LIGHTS. The PPO found that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion with reference to the origin of goods in the market turnover. The PPO also held that the registration of the BOSS LIGHTS trade mark violated the prior rights of HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG, including its company name.
Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 September 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 2195/06 sided with the PPO’s decision. Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken referred to the last instance and it has filed a cassation complaint before the Polish Supreme Administrative Court.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 May 2008, case file II GSK 506/07, gave an interpretation and clarified what is a famous (renown or reputed) trade mark and how to prove the fame of a trade mark. The SAC agreed with the view that famous trade mark has a reputation and that, besides its recognition, it must also be characterized by the following characteristics:
The SAC repealed the contested judgment and sent the case back to the VAC for reconsideration. See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1483/08“.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | famous trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 805/05
June 3rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Voivodeship Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 22 February 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 805/05 held that trade marks that are meant as signs for clothes (among other things for pants) resemble to each other to the extent that it may lead into the confusion of a consumer as regard to origin of goods in the regular course of trade, as defined in the article 9 sec. 1 pt 1 and pt 2 of the Act of 31 January 1985 on Trade marks, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 17 with subsequent amendments.
Such situation happened because both trade marks include horizontal seams crossing down the pocket which in its shapes reasemble seagull’s (eagle) wings, and where such element is simultaneously predominant for both signs.
Categories: Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | distinctive character | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish law | similarity of signs | trademark law | US law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, II GSK 298/07
March 19th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki
In 2000 the PHU Makroterm K. Wąchała & A. Wąchała applied for the registration of the figurative and word mark MAKROTERM in classes 6, 9, 11 and 42. The Makro Cash and Carry company, who applied for the registration of the figurative and word mark MAKRO in classes 1–45 on 22 March 2000, opposed to the registration. Upon finding the observations groundless, the case was then decided by the Polish Patent Office (PPO).
Makro Cash and Carry claimed that the disputable mark imitated the MAKRO mark, used its renown and infringed the company’s right to a company name. Makroterm in turn said there was no likelihood of confusion since the disputed mark did not use the renown of the MAKRO mark because of the fact that Macro Cash and Carry failed to prove the MAKRO mark had been renowned. The Makroterm representative also said the MAKRO mark had not been universally known.
The PPO overruled MAKRO’s opposition. It decided that in assessing similarity one should not focus solely on one element – the “makro” word. It also said the MAKROTERM mark was one word combining the “makro” and “term” words into an original name that moreover had been put in a colourful design. According to the Office both marks brought about different associations in the minds of the relevant public. It decided that the marks themselves differed and did not examine similarity in goods offered by the companies. The Office also pointed out that the provided advertising materials concerned only the MAKRO CASH AND CARRY mark. With regard to the infringement of the right to a company name it decided the name was a compound one so there could not have been any infringement.
Makro Cash and Carry filed an appeal against the decision of the Polish Patent Office. It read that the Office had not assessed the similarity of goods offered by both companies and with identical goods the criteria for assessing similarity of marks are much stricter. Makro Cash and Carry also said the Polish Patent Office assessed only the differences but it should have assessed similarities.
Makroterm in turn underscored that the universal recognition of the MAKRO sign had not been adequately demonstrated and that the mark had been recognized by a half of the relevant public. It also questioned the research commissioned in 2006 by the MAKRO company.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, in a judgment of 22 March 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 1325/06, rejected the appeal. The Court held that the PPO had already compared the marks with regard to all three planes and decided that the marks bore fundamental differences. It decided that the “makro” word was a common one and had little distinctive value. Apart from that it found the “term” word much more distinctive, which together with colourful design of the MAKROTERM mark made both marks different.
MAKRO filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The Supreme Court in the judgment of 15 January 2008, case file II GSK 298/07 fully agreed with the earlier judgement of the Voivodeship Court and the decision of the Polish Patent Office. It also decided there was no similarity between the marks that would lead to a confusion neither on the phonetic, nor conceptual, nor figurative plane. The mark also had not infringed the appellant’s right to the name of his company.
Categories: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights | Art. 16(3) TRIPS | Art. 315 IPL | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | company name or firm | famous trade marks | International law | likelihood of confusion | Polish courts | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court | well known trade marks.
Trade mark law, VI SA/Wa 1100/07
December 21st, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 18 December 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 1100/07 dismissed McDonald’s Corporation complaint against the Polish Patent Office’s decision and ruled that a Singapore company was allowed to register MacCoffee mark for coffee products. McDonald’s will not be allowed to “monopolize” the Mc-prefix. This judgment should make all trade mark practitioners aware of differences between legal systems. Especially when this Polish case is compared to holding in the case Quality Inns Int’l v McDonald’s Corp., 695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988). The Court ruled that Quality International’s use of the name “McSleep” infringed McDonald’s family of marks that are characterized by the use of the prefix “Mc” combined with a generic word.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | generic sign | Polish courts | trademark law | US law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case II GSK 207/07
December 4th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 November 2007 case file II GSK 207/07 held that even if the reputed mark is protected against the use on any goods, if this would bring a user an unfair advantage or it would be detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the trade mark, it does not mean that the both signs at issue should not be a subject to examination to determine their similarity or lack of it.
The case concerned a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to the trade mark “dodoni A MOŻE MY JESTEŚMY DLA CIEBIE LEPSI COLA” R-149636 that was registered for Pepsi Corp. The SAC also ruled that the findings that both trade marks are not similar also implies that there is a lack of association between these signs by potential recipients.
Categories: Art. 4(1)(b) Directive 89/104 | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | case law | Directive 89/104/EEC | famous trade marks | likelihood of confusion | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish courts | Polish institutions | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | review | similarity of signs | trademark law.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1470/07
Categories: Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 145 PBAC | Art. 246 IPL | Art. 29 TMA | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | Art. 9(1)(i) TMA | company name or firm | likelihood of confusion | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | trade mark examination | Voivodeship Administrative Court.