Sign In Remember me
Username:  
Password:
 

  Poland: the average consumers' confusion...      Spain: Hints on how to calculate the “reasonable royalty” in trade mark infringement cases. ...      General Court gives applicant the blues...      ICEBERG sinks ICEBREAKER: conceptual similarity "not decisive" whether visual and aural similarity exist...      Poland: similarity of signs, homogenity of goods...      Poland: whose treasure is it?...      Berlin Appeals Court backs ‘Parmesan’ label as purely Italian and upholds case against German Parmesan copycats. ...      Poland: act carefully when requesting preliminary injunction...      Octopus Paul (trade marks) - alive and kicking...      No confusion without similarity of marks, as CK appeal fails again...     
 
My Account Join Us Members Conferences Teams Publications Class 46 Case Notes FAQs Contact Us

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its second 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.
 
  FRIDAY, 2 JULY 2010
Poland: strong, weak, distinctive trade marks for alcohol products

The Polish Patent Office has refused to recognize the right of protection for a trademark PREMIUM DE-LUXE NEMIROFF IR-802093 registered for Nemiroff Intellectual Property Establishment because of its similarity to a series of earlier trade marks owned by the Pokish Company Wyborowa S.A. This series included word trade mark PREMIUM R-71602, PREMIUM VODKA R-82601, GOLD PREMIUM R-108603 and many others. Nemiroff filed a request for reconsideration claiming that the word "Premium" with respect to alcohol is often used to describe more accurately its class and quality and in this connection it has no distinctive character. Consumers are choosing alcohol based on its quality and the name of the manufacturer.

The Patent Office upheld the contested decision. The PPO explained that the most exposed part of the questioned trade trade is the word PREMIUM, because of its location, size and bright color in contrast to the soothing white-blue-gray color of the rest of the sign.The PPO stated that the word "Premium" is easy to remember, but it has rather poor degree of distinctive character, which are often used to denote exceptional quality. The figurative elements of the mark in such a situation may not be sufficient to exclude the likelihood of misledading the purchasers as to the origin of the goods, in particular, it will not help to exclude the associations between characters. Although the PPO agreed with the position of the parties as to the universality of the word "Premium" in trade, however, the PPO also noted that in the strict sense it may be a distinctive sign in Poland, and it is the most exposed element in questioned trade mark. The broad and long-term use of it in the form of trade marks used by Wyborowa S.A. Allowed it to acquire a secondary meaning. Given the above, the Patent Office found that in normal economic turnover PREMIUM DE-LUXE NEMIROFF may mislead the public as to the origin of the goods, as well as infringe the rights of protection of the owner of the opposed trade marks.

Nemiroff filed a complaint. The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 November 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1583/08 sided with PPO's opinion. The VAC held that the Office properly decided that the questioned trade mark is similar to a series of earlier registered trade marks, all including the distinctive word element „Premium”, which created the risk of the public being misled.

Nemiroff filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 March 2010 case file II GSK 496/09 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. The SAC held that the VAC erred in assessing the similarity between the opposing trade marks by focusing only on one element - the word "Premium", without trying to explain its distinctive character as a designation of exceptional quality of a product. Then it would be difficult to talk about the fact that the earlier registered trade marks with the word 'Premium" come from one source. The owner of a sign that has weak distinctive character must often tolerate the coexistence of the similar trade marks.

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 18.08 
Tags: Polish Supreme Administrative Court, Voivodeship Administrative Court, acquired distinctiveness, distinctive character, trademark law,

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Ignacio Marques
Jeremy Phillips
Johanna Kauhanen
Mark Schweizer
Nikos Prentoulis
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
1505 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
372 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


- 2010
     + September (10)
     + August (30)
     - July (55)
Poland: one cross for all scouts
Christian Louboutin: there is no business like (fake) shoe business
Butter: not that unique
Pigs and protection: Old Spots get the TSG treatment
Poland: observations, oppositions, invalidations - who's the party?
A brief update on Paul
German Federal Patent Court: ALLFAcolor v ALPHA
Spain reduces penal sanctions in the hope of more condemnatory orders
Finland: Conflict between trademark and name of a rock band
Spain - Fighting the pirates. Year 2009 in numbers.
Buffalo by-product goes all the 'whey' to protection
Octopus Paul still in the news... and two more Paul trade marks
Detailed affidavit by employee of applicant may be sufficient to prove genuine use
Using Google Similar Images search to find infringing logos
Sprider catches infringer in a temporary web
Customs union poses fresh threats along with opportunities
More Octopus Paul trade marks
The BGH and the story of the lost golden Easter bunny
Poland: secondary meaning and distinctiveness
Bakers to Aldi: you're not baking
Three more GIs for Italy
New .pt rules now in force
Spain - Where is the distinctivity in mixed trade marks? The Spanish CTM Court no. 1 has an answer to that.
E-justice website launched
Octopus Paul trade marks
Poland: dissimilarity of 3D trade marks
(Non-) British brands
Use of PARMETTA for a Seasoning Infringes PDO PARMIGIANO REGGIANO
Use of PARMETTA for a Seasoning Infringes PDO PARMIGIANO REGGIANO
AdWords: French Supreme Court remits Google v Vuitton case to the appeal court
Finland: Customs seized batch of watches worth 12 million euros
Latest GI Regs cover basil, beans and honey
Poland: big advertising and personal rights
The aura of luxury
Finland: The Board of Appeal taking strict line with surname trade marks
First Thai agricultural product on its way to get PGI status.
WIPO launches interactive map of Appellations of Origin registered under the Lisbon system
New Ferrari logo without the debated bar code design
Peter weathers the peerstorm
AirPlus/A+ dispute heads for ultimate appeal
Portakabin ruling: the Court of Justice rules
Arbitration ruling on the transfer of the PUMA trade marks in Spain
Montes de Toledo PDO amended
ITMA, Nottingham Law School offer new skills-base course
Priority in filing: does every minute count?
A pig's ear: Soprèssa Vicentina PDO spec amended
Italy signs up for Singapore
Switzerland: ALTEC LANSING is heard
Ireland opts to retain relative grounds examinations
Poland: strong, weak, distinctive trade marks for alcohol products
Bundespatentgericht: Speicherstadt
Product placement: the new reality gets nearer
The Zappanale goes on!
Switzerland: CAPRI is misleading geographic indication for tobacco
German Federal Patent Court : "Schusswaffe"
     + June (40)
     + May (33)
     + April (42)
     + March (62)
     + February (44)
     + January (36)
+ 2009
+ 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 ©2008-2010 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors