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.
 
  FRIDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2010
Poland: the average consumers' confusion
The Polish company AFLOFARM Fabryka Leków Sp. z o.o. applied for the word-figurative trade mark "tabletki na uspokojenie Aflofarm" (in English: Aflofarm tablets for calming down) Z-298475 for goods in classes 03, 05 and 44. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection in part of the goods in class 5 covering dietetic substances for medical use, food for babies. The PPO held that the right of protection shall not be granted for a sign that misleads the public as to the nature and properties of the good. Such misleading information is a sign that may cause false image of the average buyer as to the nature of the product, its quality or properties. The assesment of content of a signs is made by him or her from the perspective of the average consumer. The interest of the buyers requires the assumption that the sign is misleading, once a small group of consumers may be misled as to the characteristics of the goods or services, since these characteristics may affect the decision taken, in relation to those goods or services. Under such assumption, the assessment cannot be affected by anything outside the relationship sign - the goods with the reasonable buyer's idea on such relationship. It follows that the sign "tabletki na uspokojenie Aflofarm" on the goods listed in class 5 should be considered as misleading the buyers as to the nature, purpose, or functional characteristics of these goods.

AFLOFARM argued, that it's not true that the buyer/consumer "is left alone" with a sign and a product bearing the questioned trade mark. These products are only available in pharmacies and are issued only by a professional that is a pharmacist. Thus it excludes the confusion of the average consumer as to whether he or she has bought the wrong product.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 18 March 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2127/09 agreed with AFLOFARM's arguments and reversed the contested decision. The Court also noticed that "tabletki na uspokojenie Aflofarm" trade mark was applied for dietary agents/means for medical use, rather than dietary substances for medical purposes. For this reason, the Court held that the goods that are marked with a "tabletki na uspokojenie Aflofarm" trade mark will not cause consumers' confusion since products of such indications or effectiveness can be classified differently, depending on their registration or application.

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 13.20 
Tags: Polish Administrative Proceedings Code, Voivodeship Administrative Court, absolute grounds for refusal, product packaging, trade mark refusal, consumer confusion, average consumer,

 

   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
3350 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)
New President for OHIM
Greece - Telecoms keep the Communication Review Board busy
Spain - Damages and trade mark infringement actions: when (and how) to start shooting.
Dutch VPRO television programme Goudzoekers digs into fake trade mark bags
General Court: your lines are pretty, not distinctive
Adam Opel ruling, Golden Balls oppositon now reported
"Nice" news from Serbia
Poland: the differences between trade mark invalidation and the cancellation of the decision
Golf and IP... all roads lead to Newport
A shampoo with a bubble: champagne?
Easydate not so easy?
Viacom to applicant: Ya not gonna pimp yo' DJ, bro
CTM statistics on Slovenia
New Irish rules and application form in effect from 4 October
Are you on facebok?
Brussels approves more GI grants, amendments
Switzerland: use of an image of a fruit on artificially flavoured syrup not misleading
Did you say SORVIR -- or NORVIR?
Switzerland: Red Bull slays Dancing Bull
Poland: the Supreme Court speaks on copyrights and trade marks
MARQUES RELOADED: Berlin brief no.7
Meeting of the Class 46 team and friends in Berlin
MARQUES RELOADED: Berlin brief no.6
MARQUES RELOADED: Berlin brief no.5
MARQUES RELOADED: Berlin brief no.4
If you're in Berlin today ...
Two more cheeses gain GI protection
Kosovo passes new trade mark, design laws
MARQUES RELOADED: Berlin brief no.3
MARQUES RELOADED: Berlin brief no.2
MARQUES RELOADED: Berlin brief no.1
WIPO paper reviews European case law, demystifies internet TM issues
AG supports AB InBev's case in BUD appeal
Poland: informational internationalism
MARQUES Berlin 2010: Meet the Bloggers
A cold confusion and dilution shower for grohekranenshop.nl
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
     + August (30)
     + 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