CLASS 46
Now in its twelfth 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.
Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
THURSDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 2009
Polish PUSHKIN's problems
and article and article 8(i)
The German company alleged that the mark has been submitted by entrepreneur who had no licence to operate as an alcohol dealer but it was engaged in exports of alcohol. The disputed trade mark was then transferred to Belvedere company. The German company also claimed that the applicant was acting in bad faith because it was aware of the fact that such a sign exists on the same competitive Western markets. The PPO dismissed the request in its decision of 20 January 2009, case act signature Sp. 213/06. The PPO did not agree that trade mark registration was done against provisions of article 6 because, according to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 September 2004, act signature GSK 774/04, the export of alcohol from the country did not require a licence. Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 16.04
Tags: Bad faith, Poland, Polish Patent Office,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA936
Polish PUSHKIN's problems
The German company Berentzen Brennereien GmbH from Haselunnein Germany has requested invalidation of the word mark Pushkin (R-110616) registered for Belvedere Company in class 33 for alcohol beverages. The request was based on article 6 of the old Polish Trade Mark Act of 1985 (Ustawa z dnia 31 stycznia 1985 r. o znakach towarowych, Dziennik Ustaw z 1985 r. Nr 5, poz. 15, z pózniejszymi zmianami):
(1) A trademark shall be registrable on behalf of a specific enterprise, but only in respect of goods falling within its field of economic activity.
(2) The registration of a trademark for specific goods shall not prevent registration of other trademarks on behalf of the same enterprise in respect of the same or different goods falling within its field of economic activity.
(3) The registration of a trademark for specific goods shall not prevent registration of the same trademark on behalf of the same enterprise in respect of other goods falling within its field of economic activity.
and article and article 8(i)
A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
(i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;
The German company alleged that the mark has been submitted by entrepreneur who had no licence to operate as an alcohol dealer but it was engaged in exports of alcohol. The disputed trade mark was then transferred to Belvedere company. The German company also claimed that the applicant was acting in bad faith because it was aware of the fact that such a sign exists on the same competitive Western markets. The PPO dismissed the request in its decision of 20 January 2009, case act signature Sp. 213/06. The PPO did not agree that trade mark registration was done against provisions of article 6 because, according to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 September 2004, act signature GSK 774/04, the export of alcohol from the country did not require a licence. Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 16.04
Tags: Bad faith, Poland, Polish Patent Office,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA936
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 46 Archive
