The fact that a trademark has been successfully registered with the patent office and appears in official registers as protected may seem to many to be the end of the matter. However, the belief that the granted right of protection is absolute and inviolable is erroneous. In reality, registration alone does not ultimately determine whether the mark should remain in the register. It may turn out that the legal monopoly on the use of a specific name or logo was granted unfairly, in violation of the law, or to the detriment of entities that have previously used the marks.
In Polish law, these issues are regulated by the Industrial Property Law Act of 30 June 2000. It's important to remember that a final decision granting trademark protection may be challenged through a dispute procedure before the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (UPRP) or, similarly, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Success in such proceedings results in the trademark being invalidated retroactively ( ex tunc), meaning that the trademark is treated as if it had never been granted.
Reliable verification of the grounds for invalidation
The first and fundamental step when considering eliminating a competitor's trademark from legal circulation is to carefully match the factual situation to the statutory grounds for invalidation. These grounds are divided into two main groups.
- Absolute grounds for invalidation: These apply to situations where a trademark failed to meet the statutory registration criteria at the time of filing. These include marks that are purely descriptive (e.g., an attempt to register the word "Chleb" for bread), consist of elements that have become commonplace, or mislead consumers as to the nature or origin of the product.
- Relative grounds for invalidation: These are based on the rights of prior third parties. If a competitor has registered a mark identical or confusingly similar to yours that has prior priority (even if your mark was not registered but was well-known or a well-known mark), there are strong grounds for a invalidation claim.
Legal analysis of risk and evidence
Once a specific legal basis has been identified, the next step is to gather and evaluate the evidence. Invalidity proceedings are not based on a subjective sense of injustice, but on objective and hard evidence from the filing date of the disputed mark. The trader must demonstrate (often with the support of a professional attorney) that circumstances existed at that crucial point that prevented registration. When invoking earlier rights, it is necessary to prove a real risk of consumer confusion on three levels: visual, phonetic, and semantic, while also demonstrating the identity or similarity of the goods and services offered.
Formulation of strategy and initiation of proceedings
With the analytical foundation in place, it's time to move on to the formal stage, which involves submitting a reasoned application for invalidation of the protection right to the appropriate office and paying the appropriate fee. This procedure is adversarial in nature and resembles a court proceeding – the patent authority will examine both sides' arguments, while the owner of the registered trademark will strive to maintain its monopoly. It's worth remembering that an invalidation application is often the most effective form of defense (a so-called counterclaim) when we ourselves are wrongly accused of infringing another person's trademark.
To sum up
Retroactive invalidation of a registered trademark is fully possible provided that absolute or relative grounds for invalidation are demonstrated, such as the descriptive nature of the mark, infringement of prior third-party rights, or bad faith filing. However, success in such proceedings before the patent office requires a thorough legal analysis and the collection of evidence that will effectively challenge the market monopoly wrongly granted to a competitor.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of June 11, 2026.
author:
