To the detriment of the entrepreneur, the trade inspection carried out an inspection of the premises and found several irregularities. First, attention was drawn to the fact that the entrepreneur was using a name containing the word “hotel” and the aforementioned four stars, while the premises were not authorized to use such designations. Why? Because, according to Article 39 of the Act of August 29, 1997, on hotel services and the services of tour guides and tourist guides, the entrepreneur should obtain a classification of the premises into the appropriate type and category before commencing hotel services, which in turn involves a decision by the voivodeship marshal in this regard.
In the case at hand, the entrepreneur did not apply for the classification of his premises as a hotel, and therefore, in the opinion of the administrative authorities, he could not use the designation “hotel,” let alone four stars, as he had not n assigned such a category. As a result, the chamber of commerce ordered the entrepreneur to cease using the word “hotel” and to remove the aforementioned stars from the logo.
The owner of the establishment decided to file a post-inspection objection and then appeal the unfavorable decision. In the justification, he stated that hotel services constitute only a part of his business. Furthermore, he indicated that he had removed the word “hotel” from the website, but he cannot remove the stars because they are part of the registered trademark and a distinctive feature of his brand identity, and they are not related to the category of the establishment.
Unfortunately, the arguments did not convince the administrative authorities, nor the Voivodeship Administrative Court, which heard the complaint against the decision of the President of the UOKiK in this matter. Ultimately, the case was brought before the Supreme Administrative Court.
In considering the case, the NSA indicated that both the challenged decision and the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court were correct. The fact is that the appellant entrepreneur holds a protective right to a trademark containing the disputed verbal marks and asterisks, but considering the provisions of the applicable law, this has no relevance to the present case. The NSA emphasized that, regardless of the protective rights, the entrepreneur should use its trademark in accordance with the law, and in particular with the provisions relating to hotel operations, and the mere registration of a mark containing a reference to hotel operations cannot circumvent the obligations arising from this. Therefore, the NSA ruled that, despite the trademark, the appellant did not have a decision by the voivodeship marshal regarding the classification of the facility into a specific type and category of hotel, and therefore could not use the disputed logo.
As a result, in the judgment of September 8, 2022 (case file number II GSK 745/19), the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
