The French company Balenciaga from Paris opposed these registrations. The request to invalidate the right of protection was based on article 132(2)(ii) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law (ustawa Prawo wlasnosci przemyslowej z dnia 30 czerwca 2000 r.) published in Dziennik Ustaw 2001 No 49, pos. 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, pos. 1117, with later changes:

2. A right of protection for a trade mark shall not be granted, if the trade mark:
(ii) is identical or similar to a trade mark for which a right of protection was granted or which has been applied for protection with an earlier priority date (provided that the latter is subsequently granted a right of protection) on behalf of another party for identical or similar goods, if a risk of misleading the public exists, in particular by evoking associations with the earlier mark.

Balenciaga owned the word trade mark registration LE DIX in class 3. This sign was registered by the PPO on 8 May 2003 with priority from 10 June 1999. The French company claimed confusing similarity of the disputed marks because of the predominating DIX element. In addition to these arguments there was also similarity of good (cleaning preparations).

The PPO invalidated both trade marks in its decision of 13 March 2007. The PPO agreed that the disputed signs were similar and that there existed the risk of misleading the public as regards the origin of goods. Gold Drop lodged a complaint before the District Administrative Court in Warsaw. On 7 February 2008, the DAC rejected Gold Drop's complain in case of the trade mark DIX (R-160901), act signature VI SA/Wa 1787/07. As regards the similiarity of goods the Court could not agree with the assertion that the term "cleaning products" in this list of goods refers only to the category of cosmetics. In accordance with the terminology adopted in the Nice Agreement concerning the international classification of goods and services, and adopting by the Court of the language interpretation, it should be stated that the "cleaning preparations" refers to chemical products and have been clearly demarcated in the class 3 from the second group of goods that are intended for personal use, i.e. perfumery. In the Court's view the restrictive interpretation of the term "cleaning preparations" only to the range of goods including body cosmetics would be invalid.

However, on 21 February 2008, the DAC (in a different composition of judges) agreed with Gold Drop's complaint regarding the trade mark DIX (R-158898), act signature VI SA/Wa 1789/07. In the Court's view, the PPO has omitted and it has not not determined, what is the relevant public in relation to which it is necessary to assess the likelihood of confusion. The PPO did not find if the relevant public was the average consumer in France or European consumers, or whether these are the goods from the so-called. "the higher shelves", and the recipient is a demanding customer or whether the goods are intended for daily use. The evidence presented before the PPO did not allow to assume that the goods included in the list of disputed trade mark were homogeneous to goods the earlier trade mark was registered for.

Gold Drop filed a cassation complain before the Supreme Administrative Court against the DAC judgment of 7 February 2008, act signature VI SA/Wa 1787/07. The SAC rejected the complaint in its judgment of 3 February 2009, act signature II GSK 654/08. The Court held that Gold Drop has based its cassation complaint only on the breach of the IPL law (article 132(2)(ii)) and the SAC confirmed that while evaluating the similarity of signs only factual findings decide the case, so it was necessary for Gold Drop to raise the plea of breach of the procedural law (administrative proceedings), which the company did not put forward and while deciding the case the SAC is limited to motions included in a complaint. This judgment is final.

Reader Comments: 0

Post a Comment