Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  THURSDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2009
Poland: Glazide differs from gliclazidium

The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita reports a recent judgment of the District Administrative Court in Warsaw, act signature VI SA/Wa 1000/08. On 29 September 2001, Farmaceutyczna Spóldzielnia Prac Galena from Wroclaw applied for trade mark registration for the word Glazide in class 5 for goods such as anti-diabetic pharmaceutical preparations. The Polish Patent Office registered this sign (R-161144) in the decision of 4 February 2005.

Les Laboratoires Servier from France filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection based on article 129(1)(ii) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law (ustawa Prawo wlasnosci przemyslowej z dnia 30 czerwca 2000 r.) published in Dziennik Ustaw 2001 No 49, pos. 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, pos. 1117, with later changes::

1. Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs which:
(ii) are devoid of sufficient distinctive character.
and 129(2)(ii):
(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,
The French company claimed that the mark Glazide could not distinguish the goods for which it was registered. The mark itself presents information about the treatment of diabetes. The active ingredient (AI) in these kinds of medicine is the substance called gliclazidium (gliclazide). However, the PPO dismissed the request and the French company lodged a complaint before the District Administrative Court in Warsaw. That court held that the disputed mark may lead its recipients (doctors, pharmacists) to make some association with the AI, but it does not mean that it lacks the distinctive character. The sign differs from the AI in phonetic and visual aspects. According to the Court, the Glazide trade mark is fanciful and does not describe a type of drug. The DAC ruled that article 129(2)(ii) clearly states that only signs that are made exclusively of the elements that describe the nature or origin of goods lack distinctive character.

The judgment is not yet final. The cassation complaint may be filed before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 14.53 
Tags: medicines, Poland, Polish courts, Polish law, Polish Patent Office, threshold for similarity,

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3257 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
515 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
+ 2011
+ 2010
- 2009
     + December (44)
     + November (55)
     + October (49)
     + September (48)
     + August (39)
     + July (54)
     + June (54)
     + May (55)
     + April (54)
     + March (57)
     - February (48)
OrientExpress in Poland
Muga: Spanish Supreme Court clarifies scope of unfair competition law
Finland: The New Face of Milk
Polish PUSHKIN's problems
Another PDO is amended
UK IPO: New PAN 01/09 on "Shopping Centre Services"
Poland: 10, 50, 102, 302 and counting...
French trade marks database opens publicly on 3 April 2009
Business Superbrands -- Google scoops the latest poll
Latest issue of the European Trade Mark Reports
Sponsored links: questions refered to the ECJ by the Dutch supreme court
Latest MARQUES Community design review available
New weblog for the fashion sector
More GI applications
Spain – The most valuable Spanish brands, by the consulting firm Brand Finance Iberia.
The wurst decision? Federal Patent Court decides on 'Münchner Weißwurst'
More applications for GI protection
Macedonia: new IP law
Spain – Government to create fifteen new Commercial Courts.
Domain names conference
Thou shall not infringe trade marks
Help from the OHIM: CTM E-Filing: Program compatibility issues
Finland: Statistics for 2008
MILKA fends off ILKA FITT in Hungary
Life Science marks held confusingly similar
Some more questions on L'Oréal v Bellure
Denmark: Burberry counterfeit purses – Supreme Court’s decision concerning damages/compensation
AG's Opinion in L’Oréal v Bellure
Race for Dakar
Geographical indications: cheese and wine
Sponsored links: French first instance court condemns Google
OHIM: Changes to "The Manual of Trade Mark Practice"
Unauthorized Commercials
Erroneous reasoning in composite trade mark cases – instructions from the supreme courts of Greece
Spain - Exhaustion of trade mark rights and selective distribution.
Trade marks in virtual worlds
Finland: European Criteria
Poland: Glazide differs from gliclazidium
WE or ELLE?
the Aceites appeal and the excessively negligent consumer
New CTM e-filing system "faster and simpler"
All change for Gorgonzola -- but what's the change?
More GIs protected in Europe
EU- China action plan to combat IPR infringement
MARQUES gains observer status
Offensive comparative advertising in Greece – on frogs and goats!
L'Oréal v Bellure -- a drink and a discussion?
Latest issue of IP Insight with a feature on "IP in the downturn"
     + January (61)
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors