WHEN CAN NON-USE BE JUSTIFIED? JURISDICTION REPORT: POLAND
Monika Wieczorkowska Patpol
Te Supreme Administrative Court ruled in December that the fact that there are cancellation proceedings pending against a trademark registration does not constitute an important reason for non-use.
A Polish company Sniezka Invest filed a request with the Polish Patent Office for a declaration that the word and device trademark registration ‘Goplana Michalki’ had lapsed. Te mark was registered in the name of Jutrzenka in class 30 for chocolate candies. Sniezka Invest claimed that the mark has not been genuinely used in Poland for five successive years since the right was granted.
Sniezka is the holder of a word trademark registration for ‘Michalki’ and argued that the existence of goods designated with Goplana Michalki would interfere with its business activity.
In response, Jutrzenka claimed that there were good reasons for the non-use of its Goplana Michalki trademark, namely the pending administrative proceedings for cancellation of the mark. Te cancellation request was also filed by Sniezka. In the opinion of Jutrzenka, the use of the mark in the course of those proceedings would be irrational as it would expose the company to future infringement claims. It also claimed that Sniezka had no legal interest in requesting the lapse of its mark.
Te Polish Patent Office declared the trademark Goplana Michalki lapsed. Jutrzenka filed a complaint to the District Administrative Court in Warsaw, which dismissed it. As a result, the company filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.
Te Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation complaint, finding that serious reasons for trademark non-use should be factual and/or legal obstacles. Tese may be external events of a force majeure nature that are impossible to predict and prevent. All circumstances relating to ordinary business risks that concern the current operations of each business entity cannot be deemed such obstacles. A legal obstacle preventing the use of a trademark may be, for example, an individual administrative act prohibiting the use of the mark.
Polish law doesn’t stipulate that a company should refrain from using a trademark once a request for cancellation has been filed. On the contrary, the Industrial Property Law says that as long as the right of protection is valid, the holder has the exclusive right to use the trademark. Ceasing the use of the mark during cancellation proceedings is the sole decision of the holder of the trademark and cannot be regarded as a reason for non-use. Justified reasons for not using a trademark are exceptional and, as a result, they must be assessed restrictively.
58 World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2011
“ THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE IDEAS BEHIND INVALIDATION PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT NOTIONS OF SIMILARITY OR IDENTITY BETWEEN THE TRADEMARKS, BUT ACTIONS AIMED AT PROTECTING THE PLAINTIFF’S TRADEMARK RIGHT, THE RIGHT TO EXCLUSIVE USE OF A GIVEN MARK.”
Te judgment is important as it clarifies the situation regarding trademark non-use. Previously, the District Administrative Court had ruled that pending cancellation proceedings against a trademark registration did qualify as a justified reason for trademark non-use. With the new ruling, it is now explicit that such administrative proceedings cannot be invoked during the invalidation process.
Te Supreme Administrative Court also confirmed that in order to prove the required legal interest in filing the request for declaring a trademark lapsed due to non-use, it is sufficient to refer to a requesting party’s own trademark registered for the same category of goods or services and to mention the elements common to both trademarks.
It is crucial that there is no risk of confusion between the marks at issue when proving the legal interest in requesting the lapse. Proceedings for trademark cancellation and declaring a trademark lapsed due to non-use differ also in the understanding of legal interest. Te court concluded that the ideas behind invalidation proceedings are not notions of similarity or identity between the trademarks, but actions aimed at protecting the plaintiff’s trademark right, the right to exclusive use of a given mark.
Monika Wieczorkowska is a European patent and trademark attorney at Patpol in Warsaw. She can be contacted at:
monika@patpol.com.pl
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76