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, 24 OCTOBER 2011
Poland: well-known trade marks
On 17 October 2007, the Polish Patent Office registered the word trade mark Auto-dap R-197829 for Dariusz Chudobiński from Łódź. Andrzej Teodorczyk who owns the Company Auto Serwis Dap located in Pabianice town, filed a notice of opposition.

Mr Teodorczyk claimed that Mr Chudobiński acted in bad faith. He also noted that the sign in question was widely known in Pabianice and it was associated with the automotive garage operated by him under the name "AUTO DAP". The garage was located in the immediate vicinity of the garage owned by Mr Chudobiński. Mr Teodorczy argued that the DAP company was founded by him in 1984, and its designation is an abbreviation of three names. Mr Teodorczyk pointed out that he had shares in the company AUTO-DAP sp. z o.o., that was also founded by Mr Chudobiński and his wife, however, he never transferred the right to the AUTO-DAP sign.

The PPO dismissed the opposition and ruled that the Company AUTO-DAP sp. z o.o. has the property right to its company name, and Mr Chdobiński received a proper authorization to file for a trade mark Auto-dap for his own. The PPO ruled that a short abbreviation DAP, as an abstract term, can not be attributed to specific individuals, as their personal interest due to the order of letters in this expression. These letters can have different meanings for the average customer in perception of this determination. The Patent Office did not agree that Auto-dap trade maw was filed in bad faith. Mr Chudobiński submitted evidence documents that he used the name DAP in his business. Mr Teodorczyk, as one of the founders of the AUTO-DAP company, has agreed (and did not oppose) the use of the company's name (firm) in this way. He used the same DAP designation in his business activities as an individual and in a company which shares has has sold to the owner of the registered trade mark. Mr Chudobiński filed a trade mark application according to the authorization and undertook the obligation to transfer the disputed trade mark on the company, for each request. It was therefore an application that has been made in good faith - the mark was used by the company for nearly 6 years - and the authorization for its registration by Mr Chudobiński did not violate the provisions of the Articles of Association. Mr Teodorczyk filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 June 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 617/11 dismissed it. The Court ruled that Mr Teodorczyk did not prove that Mr Chudobiński wanted to block business activities of Mr Teodorczyk for the reason that he has registered the disputed mark. The VAC noted also that Polish law provides that a right of protection will not be granted for a trade mark in respect of identical or similar goods, if the trade mark is identical or similar to a trade mark which, before the date according to which priority to obtain a right of protection is determined, has been well-known and used as a trade mark in respect of the goods of another party. However, this trade mark has to be well-known on the whole territory of the Republic of Poland or on a substantial part of it. The recognition and knowledge of the trade mark only in less than a significant part of the Polish territory, even if it is intense, does not create the right to a well-known trade mark. Knowledge of the trade mark in one city and its surroundings, even if it’s a large one, is not enough for the sign to be regarded as a well-known trade mark.

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 09.04 
Tags: bad faith, firm, personal rights or interests, Polish Act on Industrial Property Law, trade mark opposition, 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
3352 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
     + December (24)
     + November (41)
     - October (42)
OHIM Boards of Appeal rejects another slogan
Germany: Is "Proti" the German bridge to "Bainbridge" ?
General Court: Back in the U.S.S.R
Darjeeling gets its legal protection -- in stages
Poland: platan v. platanus
DPMA: trade mark filing trends in 2011
BUNGA BUNGA
General Court: All for SEVEN- SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND
November ETMR now published
OHIM's new mediation service: in force since 24 October 2011
General Court: who can see more clearly now?
Trade Mark of the Day
Poland: food labelling
Poland: well-known trade marks
La Sonrisa de Carmen y Bloom Clothes v OHMI
Freixenet, SA v OHIM: Salut! Txin txin!
Germany: Feierbiest
UKIPO issues TPN (3/2011) - hearings in cases of invalidation on relative grounds
General Court: LOOPIA v LOOP, LOOPY
Germany: I might be moved by a movie but IMOVIE is not iMOVE
MARQUES events: coming to a country near you?
General Court: Rosalia v Rosalia de Castro
Trade Mark of the day
General Court: NC NICKOL v NIKE
OHIM: EuroClass replacing EuroAce and EuroNice classification tools
MARQUES seminar on first big RCD ruling
General Court: NAVI v NaViKey
General Court: PIPELINE and absolute grounds
Poland: sunflowers and the Sun
Portugal: Implementation of Project Seniority
Nike in General court: DYNAMIC SUPPORT and VICTORY RED
Spain - Happy Pills, S.L. will be even happier (and will continue using a pink cross to sell candies).
Germany: Bavarian Beer battle still raging ...
Germany: once again the law of people sharing the same name" ("Recht der Gleichnamigen")
two stripes, three stripes and OUT
Portugal: IMUNID vs. IMMUNIQ
Poland: it is all about the reputation
Valencia court takes jurisdiction over fakes in transit
Paki Logistics' appeal rejected in General Court
The King is Not dead, all hail the King
Ara v OHMI - Allrounder
Poland: a letter of consent and something more
     + September (51)
     + August (27)
     + July (39)
     + June (37)
     + May (47)
     + April (35)
     + 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