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.
 
  MONDAY, 23 AUGUST 2010
Poland: conflict between trade names
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 574/10 ruled that Article 8 of the Paris Convention is a "conflicting norm" i.e. a norm/rule in private international law that points to appropriate substantive law that should be applied in a given case. The "trade name" on the basis of Article. 8, 9, 10 bis of the Paris Convention covers both the company name as an indication of business and company name in the subjective meaning. A trade name is the name of an entity being endowed with a right (merchant, trader, businessman – the subject of rights ), under which it is established and is performing its business activity, usually organized as the company/enterprise (the object of rights). It is therefore a designation of a business, which includes distinctive elements, and all these elements that allow for the individualization of economic activity.

The disclosure of company's name 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) has a declaratory nature, therefore the priority of use decides on the priority of right to the company name.

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 11.19 
Tags: Art. 10bis Paris Convention, Art. 8 Paris Convention, Art. 9 Paris Convention, Paris Convention, Polish Act on Industrial Property Law, Voivodeship Administrative Court, bad faith, firm, personal rights, trade mark invalidation,

 

   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
3355 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
523 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
+ 2011
- 2010
     + December (50)
     + November (47)
     + October (40)
     + September (46)
     - August (30)
Facebook.me transferred to rightful owner
Preparing for the new gTLDs: a survey
Poland: membership in capital group is not enough
The weird case of the ZAHIA trade marks applications
Dismissal of dishonest franchisee: protecting a brand and interests in it
Greece - penalty clauses and trade mark agreements
"Absurd trade mark disputes"
iPod sees off eiPott threat
"Euro-defences" can't be swept aside by summary judgment, rules appellate court
More protection for branded booze sold in noisy bars
Poland: conflict between trade names
"Aura of luxury" assists Chanel against 'poor quality' marketing
Saucisse de Morteau names protected
September ETMR now out
Community Trade Mark Infringements in the Netherlands: how exclusive is the jurisdiction of The Hague District Court?
Coffee soup? Srsly?
UK to continue CTM owner notifications -- for now
New UK guidance on requests for cross-examination in Registry proceedings
Guccio Gucci successful in Italy as Florence Court stops use of Elisabetta Gucci mark.
Finland: NEW WAVE not descriptive for goods in class 25
Switzerland: SKY not confusingly similar to SKYPE
Poland: bound by the law
OHIM: Spanish trade marks via TMview
Beans, cheese, peppers in latest round of GIs
Non-minor amendments affect peach and nectarine GIs
VITA veto'd by VIETA
Autopaint: court reviews principles for assessing infringement damages
Arbitrating CTM disputes: a reader asks ...
August 2010 ETMR now out
OHIM introduces some practice changes
     + July (55)
     + 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 ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors