Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/trademark-law/famous-trade-marks/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:19:34
Document Index: 561907744

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 8', 'Art. 296', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 151', 'Art. 246', 'Art. 132']

Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » famous trade marks
Archive for: famous trade marks
Trade mark law, case II GSK 522/10
May 31st, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 31 May 2011 case file II GSK 522/10 held that the reputation of trade mark is a matter of fact and it is not enough to show that there is evidence that suggests that the sign could be known and recognized as attractive in Poland. It was necessary to examine and assess whether according to the methods developed by the doctrine and jurisprudence, the sign on the date it was applied for in Poland, was known and recognized as a reputed trade mark in this country.
Categories: Art. 8(1) TMA | Directive 89/104/EEC | EU law | famous trade marks | Polish Act on Trade marks | Polish courts | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | reputed trade marks | trade mark invalidation | trademark law.
Trade mark law, case XXII GWzt 5/10
The Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs (in Polish: Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie Wydział XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych) in its judgment of 31 May 2010 case file XXII GWzt 5/10 ruled that when deciding whether a trade mark has a repute, the Court examines in detail the evidence offered with respect to the scope and level of commercial, sponsorship and promotional actions of the proprietor, used for building the reputation. The Court pays attention to the type of goods, their volume of sale, popularity among consumers, the size, frequency and regularity of sponsoring of various events attracting a large number of viewers, allowing it to decide that the trade mark meets the requirement of repute and thus should be known to a significant part of the public.
Categories: Art. 296(2)(iii) IPL | Directive 89/104/EEC | EU law | famous trade marks | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs | Polish courts | Polish law | Regulation 40/94 | reputed trade marks | trade mark infringement | trademark law.
Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2168/10
Categories: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 132(2)(iii) IPL | Art. 151 PBAC | Art. 246 IPL | famous trade marks | likelihood of confusion | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | reputed trade marks | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark opposition | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Trade mark law, case Sp. 441/06
September 16th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
Zino Davidoff’s attempted to invalidate the Polish trade mark for COOL WOMAN R-164594 registered in class 3 for goods such as for perfumery products including perfumes, toilet water, lavender water, cologne water and deodorants for personal use and owned by A&S Parfume Factory, a Polish company from Katowice.
The Swiss Company, being the owner of the Polish registered trade mark DAVIDOFF COOL WATER R-71968 and other International and Community trade marks, argued that COOL WATER brand had gained world renown and that the company incurred significant expenses in the brand’s promotion and advertising in Poland in the years 2002-2004. The Company from Fribourg alleged that A&S took the advantage of reputation of Davidoff’s trade marks.
A&S further argued that there was no risk of confusion because the word “cool” has no distinctive character and it appears in many trade marks registered in class 3 for cosmetics. There are 26 marks including the word “cool” that were registered under the Madrid Agreement procedure and 38 marks registered at the national level. The company from Katowice claimed that both elements had a clear meaning for buyers and that both of these English words were well-known to Polish consumers. A&S also argued that it is the Davidoff brand which has reputation – not its Cool Water trade marks.
The PPO in its decision case file Sp. 441/06 rejected the motion brought by Zino Davidoff. According to Polish Patent Office the word “cool” does not possess “the dominant meaning”, because it is included in different previously registered signs. The disputed marks, when assessed in their entirety, are not sufficiently similar to lead to a risk of consumer confusion regarding the origin of the goods. Therefore, the argument based on (the use of) the reputation of Davidoff’s trade marks was also regarded as unfounded.
The decision is not final. Both parties may appeal to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.
Categories: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | famous trade marks | Polish Patent Office | reputed trade marks | trade mark invalidation | trademark law.