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, 21 APRIL 2011
Poland: L'OREAL not similar to O'LEARY? Oh really?
On 20 December 2006, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word trade mark O'LEARY R-180416 applied for by Piotr Kasprzycki PPH Eveline Cosmetics from Lesznowola for goods in Class 03 such as skin, hair and body care products for children, women and men, mascaras, creams, lotions, shampoos, soaps, gels baths, creams and gels, cosmetics, perfumery, and cleansing tissues and goods in Class 05 such as medicinal cosmetics.

French company L'OREAL Societe Anonyme filed a request for invalidation. L'Oreal owns the word trade mark L'OREAL R-42203 registered with the earlier priority of 5 May 1960 for goods in Class 03 such as perfumery and cosmetics, toilet soaps, lipsticks, products for oral care, hair coloring agents, shampoos. The Company also owns the word-figurative trade mark L'OREAL STUDIO LINE R-65340 registered with the priority of 24 November 1988 for goods in Class 03. The French company argued that its trade marks are well-known and reputed. It presented a survey of consumers in the years 2001-2003, which proved the knowledge of the brand and consumer trust in the products. L'OREAL was the brand that has won numerous awards. The company argued that some of the goods are identical other are similar and raised an argument that the trade mark application was made in bad faith. The company relied on the judgment of the French court, which forbade the company that was created by Piotr Kasprzycki in France, the violations of trade marks and company name of L'Oreal, by the use of the name O'LEARY. L'OREAL also claimed the company created by Mr Kasprzycki was fictitious becuase its capital was 1 euro.

O'LEARY argued that its trade Mark Has Irish origins and the average consumer is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. O'LEARY admitted that L'Oreal is a strong and very distinguishable brand and the consumer who buys these cosmetics will not pay attention to the other cheaper products. O'LEARY noted that since the French court judgment has been appealed, so the case has not been finally decided. In its opinion, the proceedings in France is not relevant in the proceedings before the Polish Patent Office.

The Adjudicative Board of the PPO in its decision of 16 March 2010 case no. Sp. 251/08 invalidated the right of protection for the trade mark O'LEARY. The PPO ruled that O'LEARY is confusingly similar to L'OREAL. Piotr Kasprzycki PPH Eveline Cosmetics filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 April 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 1860/10 agreed with the PPO and dismissed the case. The judgment is not final yet. The cassation complaint can be brought before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 15.29 
Tags: bad faith, famous trade marks, likelihood of confusion, reputed trade marks, similarity of goods, similarity of signs, trade mark invalidation, trademark law, Voivodeship Administrative Court, well known trade marks,

 

   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
     + December (24)
     + November (41)
     + October (42)
     + September (51)
     + August (27)
     + July (39)
     + June (37)
     + May (47)
     - April (35)
Poland: Sindbad is not for all
WTO “GI register” for wines and spirits: the making-of, part II.
What a ball at the bingo show!
Boomerang look-alike figurative trademark not distinctive
Publication for opposition purposes in Italy likely to kick off in July 2011.
An anti-trademark filing injunction: Pink Ribbon obtains one in the Netherlands
Tubesca v Tumesa (Tubos del Mediterráneo)
Euro-Information - Européenne de traitement de l'information: appeal rejected
Lancôme's appeal rejected by the General Court
Poland: L'OREAL not similar to O'LEARY? Oh really?
Germany: "... a ratio of about 50 to 50"
Poland: numbers, numericals
Will Croatia's intention to protect wine and spirit names affect you?
Germany: A simple "kiss" may be enough to make the difference...
Poland: secondary meaning and distinctiveness - the saga continues
Air France's new logo
Behavioural Index descriptive in the investors' market
Peaceful CTM register
Montasio PDO: non-minor amendment approved
DHL case: ECJ defines scope of CTM injunctive relief
CheckMobile's appeal for Carcheck rejected
Deutsche Bahn "red and grey" appeal goes to ECJ
Amending goods and services specifications: new UK guidance
Plum GI protection for Romanian marmalade
Comet v Comit
Going round and round
Update on the Easter Bunny disputes - Austria and Germany
Finland - Decision concerning trademarks with a reputation
Poland: the courts note differences between wine and vodka
ECJ to hear appeal on "more than mere local significance"
Poland: whose miss is this Miss?
WIPO announces buoyant filings under Madrid System
New trade mark, design laws in force in Bulgaria
Happy birthday, CTM!
Opposition proceedings in Italy most likely entering into force in May 2011.
     + March (48)
     + February (32)
     + January (43)
+ 2010
+ 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