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, 26 FEBRUARY 2009
Polish PUSHKIN's problems


The German company Berentzen Brennereien GmbH from Haselunnein Germany has requested invalidation of the word mark Pushkin (R-110616) registered for Belvedere Company in class 33 for alcohol beverages. The request was based on article 6 of the old Polish Trade Mark Act of 1985 (Ustawa z dnia 31 stycznia 1985 r. o znakach towarowych, Dziennik Ustaw z 1985 r. Nr 5, poz. 15, z pózniejszymi zmianami):


(1) A trademark shall be registrable on behalf of a specific enterprise, but only in respect of goods falling within its field of economic activity.
(2) The registration of a trademark for specific goods shall not prevent registration of other trademarks on behalf of the same enterprise in respect of the same or different goods falling within its field of economic activity.
(3) The registration of a trademark for specific goods shall not prevent registration of the same trademark on behalf of the same enterprise in respect of other goods falling within its field of economic activity.

and article and article 8(i)

A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
(i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;

The German company alleged that the mark has been submitted by entrepreneur who had no licence to operate as an alcohol dealer but it was engaged in exports of alcohol. The disputed trade mark was then transferred to Belvedere company. The German company also claimed that the applicant was acting in bad faith because it was aware of the fact that such a sign exists on the same competitive Western markets. The PPO dismissed the request in its decision of 20 January 2009, case act signature Sp. 213/06. The PPO did not agree that trade mark registration was done against provisions of article 6 because, according to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 September 2004, act signature GSK 774/04, the export of alcohol from the country did not require a licence.

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 16.04 
Tags: Bad faith, Poland, Polish Patent Office,

 

   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
3308 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