Kaja Seń-Majewska

Where legislation does not specify a particular name for a product, a Member State may not prohibit the use of terms traditionally associated with zoonotic products to designate products containing vegetable protein.

Trademarks may be cancelled if not used in a timely manner. However, there are exceptions. A trademark protection right can be retained despite even if the trademark in question is not used if there are compelling reasons to do so. Such reasons must be justified and demonstrated. Recently, the owner of the word mark “MOSTOSTAL” found out that simply waiting for the conclusion of licence agreements cannot qualify as an excusable reason.

A ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that the use of peel-off labels is, in principle, allowed and that there is no obligation to include all mandatory information on one top layer of the label. The use of several label layers will not lead to hiding mandatory information if the top label indicates where the remaining information can be found. Earlier, domestic interpretations ruled out such a possibility.

Consumers are looking at medicinal product trademarks with greater precision. Because these products have an effect on health, the issue of similarity between trademarks for products on this kind is not always considered in the same way as trademarks for goods and services in other industries. In the case of medicinal products and pharmaceuticals, even slight differences in brand names might be important. This was the standpoint adopted recently by the Supreme Administrative Court , which stated that even a change of merely the last two letters of a mark can be significant. The court also found that in the case of medicine, a name that combines the name of the main chemical ingredient of the medicine in question or name of an illness for which the medicine is intended with certain prefixes or stereotypical endings is a fanciful name.

Applying for a trademark that is identical to or resembles (with respect to a key element of distinctive character) marks held by a different business undertaking once a business relationship has ended is application made in bad faith.

The Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw has confirmed in a recent judgment that in a court case there is a requirement to prove that a trademark is a trademark with reputation – the judgment comes in a case concerning a claim for invalidation of a trademark.