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.
 
  WEDNESDAY, 28 DECEMBER 2011
Poland: a letter of consent is not enough says the Court
In 2007, the Polish Patent Office registered the word-figurative trademark citibank handlowy R-190720, for the American company Citibank, N.A., a National Banking Association. In 2008, Citigroup Inc. applied for the word trade mark CITI HANDLOWY Z-337716.

The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection, despite the fact that Citibank N.A. is the sole shareholder of the Citigroup Inc., and Citigroup Inc. provided a letter of consent from its parent company. The PPO decided that both signs would mark very similar goods and services and are directed to the same audience. There is also visuall similarity, caused by common elements. The PPO noted that it is not obliged to take into account the letter of consent issued by Citibank, N.A. Citigroup Inc. filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative court in Warsaw in its judgment of 9 December 2011 case file VI SA/Wa 723/11 dismissed it. The Court held that the PPO correctly examined all evidence and properly decided on the similarity of signs. The VAC noted that that letters of consent may be evidence in proceedings, but they do not bind the PPO. The VAC pointed to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 December 2007 case file II GSK 279/07. The SAC held that a letter of consent cannot be used as ground to register a trade mark since the Republic of Poland did not implement Article 4(5) of the First Council Directive 89/104.

See "Poland: a letter is not enough" and "Poland: consent letter is not enough"

Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 13.07 
Tags: letter of consent, Polish Act on Industrial Property Law, Polish Patent Office, similarity of goods, similarity of services, similarity of signs, trade mark examination, trade mark refusal, trademark law, Voivodeship Administrative Court,

 

   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)
Poland: a letter of consent is not enough says the Court
Russians refuse Baltika registration of 'deceptive' beer brand
Gornooryahovski sausage: a first for Bulgaria
General Court: to be or not to be distinctive
The shoemaker son always goes barefoot
Boards of Appeal refuses FUCKING FREEZING
General Court: no Swiss exception
Germany: 3-D is not 3-D if the image is blurred...
General Court: MIXFRONT, VORFRONT, INFRONT
Seggiano PDO registered.
General Court: the return of the King
Poland: Wunderbaum is the reputed trade mark
General Court never tires in Qualifier case
Lough Neagh eels: a first PGI for Northern Ireland
Something to read? Two new titles
Alpine in General Court: don't get confused on your winter holidays
Practical Manual on GIs in ACP countries published
Only Givenchy, Exclusively in General Court
It's already 2012 for the ETMR
Switzerland: best meat in town was not the best idea
Poland: more on wooden pails and their reputation
Poland: KETONAL v. KETOGEL
Philips, Nokia ruling: a headache for brand owners
General Court: SE Sports Equipment v SE so easy
     + November (41)
     + October (42)
     + 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