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, 25 OCTOBER 2010
Poland: there is nothing new under the Sun
The Polish company EDIPRESSE POLSKA S.A. from Warsaw applied for the right of protection for word trade mark NEW Z-294152 for goods in Classes 16, 35 and 41. The Polish Patent Office refused to register this sign claiming that it does not have sufficient distinctive character that would allow to individualize the source of the goods. The PPO concluded that the sign is not distinctive, because it informs that the goods and services for which the registration is sought, are... new. EDIPRESSE filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 501/10 held that the common practice of the Polish Patent Office in registering trade marks containing descriptive elements was definitely too liberal, especially if it is considered that while examining the registrability, the future interest of other entrepreneurs in access to a given sign should be taken into account. According to the VAC there must be a significant reduction in the number of registered trademarks with the descriptive elements, geographical or generic names, as the result of understanding the proper function of a trade mark, because the primarily function of a trade mark is to indicate the origin of the goods from a particular undertaking. If, therefore, the applied sign may be perceived by the average consumer as information about the characteristics (properties) of goods or services, the origin from a particular geographic area, it cannot be a trademark due to lack of distinctive ability which is required for trade marks. The importance of the principle of freedom of access to certain descriptive signs must therefore lead to a significant reduction in the number of signs with descriptive elements that were registered as individual trade marks. The judgment is not final.

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 08.55 
Tags: Voivodeship Administrative Court, absolute grounds for refusal, distinctive character, trade mark examination, trade mark refusal,

 

   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
3303 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
     + December (50)
     + November (47)
     - October (40)
Botumax / Botox
Poland: band's name as a trade mark
Beware of blondes!
Free La Liberté n’a pas de prix
Switzerland: DeeCee Style is not prohibited use of CEE symbol
Octopus Paul's strong brand lives on
Poland: can color be monopolized?
German Federal Patent Court: Cali Nails
3-D or not 3-D, that is the question …
Spain – Spanish CTM Tribunal rules on damages in infringement cases.
Latest ETMR now published
ECTA issues statement on latest ACTA draft
Poland: there is nothing new under the Sun
Top Twenty Court of Justice cases: still one week to vote!
First speech of new OHIM President António Campinos
WIENER WERKSTÄTTE, or the Austrian exception?
Slovakian cheese gets TSG treatment
More GI Regulations protect names in EU
German Federal Patent Court: Annual Report 2009
Nijntje sees Cathy in Court
Poland: the confusion with regard to ENERGY
German trade mark judges: hear them, tell them what you think!
Poland: higrosterowanie for all!
Now Kosovo accepts availability search requests
Most important Court of Justice rulings: have your say!
Estonian Supreme court ends pharmacies' long-standing headache
Battle of Mariefred leaves both sides free to use 'Gripsholm'
Guide to Registration in European Dependent Territories out next month
Poland: whose pony is this?
‘Plop’ says the cork: champagne for Champagne against Andrélon’s shampoo
Prleška tünka gets the GI treatment
Pantelleria caper GI terms amended
Greece - blow against counterfeiters in downtown Athens
Court of Justice clarifies starting-date rules for restititio in integrum
Oh yes, it's Co.No!
Poland: Varna, Warna or Варна
New OHIM forms: “Requesting changes of names and addresses" and "Appointing/deleting/ replacing representatives"
TEFLON owners make infringement charges stick in Russia
Plain packaging: is it legal, is it effective?
UKIPO: Tribunal Practice Notice (4/2010)
     + September (46)
     + 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