WEDNESDAY, 21 DECEMBER 2011
The shoemaker son always goes barefoot
This Class46 membear considers himself a reasonably observant and circumspect consumer, who easily recognizes brands and trade marks, however and unfortunately, who also pays less attention to the prices of the product. Last time he wanted to spend a pleasant time with friends and he found out that he did not pass the test for the observant consumer, when he has purchased a wrong product that was needed to prepare couple of tasty shots, and this is why he will watch the case described below with big interest.
On 6 June 2007, Wódka Polska filed three trade mark applications. The word-figurative trade mark ZŁOTA GORZKA R-224911, that was registered on 21 October 2009, the word trade mark ZŁOTA GORZKA Z-326257 and and the word-figurative trade mark ZŁOTA GORZKA Z-326262. All three applications concerned goods in Class 33, such as alcohlic beverages. For the last two signs, the PPO refused to grant the right of protection.
On the same day of 6 June 2007, another Polish companny, POLMOS Białystok S.A. applied for the word-figurative trade mark ZŁOTA GORZKA ORIGINAL 1928 EXTRA DISTILLED Z-326227, The PPO registered this trade mark on 7 January 2010. On 12 September 2007, POLMOS Białystok S.A. applied for the word-figurative trade mark ZŁOTA GORZKA Z MIĘTĄ 1928 EXTRA DISTILLED Z-330059.
POLMOS Białystok S.A. filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark ZŁOTA GORZKA R-224911. The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its order of 25 November 2011, case act Sp. 140/11 adjourned the hearing, because both parties filed new documents.
Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 09.43
Tags: likelihood of confusion, Polish Act on Industrial Property Law, similarity of goods, similarity of signs, trade mark opposition, Polish Patent Office,