1. Kombucha & Wellness Trademarks in Poland — Legal Context

Kombucha products typically face trademark problems in Poland because they sit in a “borderline descriptive wellness category”:

• Often described as “natural,” “healthy,” “detox,” “fermented,” “probiotic”
• These terms are frequently considered non-distinctive or descriptive
• Wellness branding is heavily scrutinized under:
  • EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR)
  • Polish Industrial Property Law
  • Case law of EUIPO, General Court, and Polish Supreme Administrative Court

The key legal issues are:

A. Distinctiveness problem

Names like “Kombucha Wellness,” “Healthy Brew,” or “Natural Energy Drink” may be refused.

B. Descriptiveness (Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR)

If consumers see the mark as describing the product rather than its origin → rejection.

C. “Health-washing” risk

Claims implying medical or detox effects may make marks:

• misleading
• non-registrable
• vulnerable to cancellation

CASE 1: eBilet Polska v EUIPO (General Court, 2025) — “Descriptive branding cannot be saved by design”

This case is very relevant to kombucha branding strategy.

Facts

• Applicant tried to register a stylized mark “eBilet”
• Claimed design elements made it distinctive

Court ruling

• The mark was still descriptive
• Graphic design was too weak to override meaning
• Consumers still saw it as “electronic ticket”

Legal principle

Adding decorative or stylized elements does NOT cure descriptiveness.

Why it matters for kombucha

If a company tries to register:

• “KOMBUCHA NATURAL”
• “PROBIOTIC DRINK WELLNESS”

Even with fancy branding → still likely rejected.

✔ Lesson: Design does not rescue descriptive wellness names

CASE 2: “Perlage” Mineral Water Case (Polish Supreme Administrative Court, 2025)

Facts

• Applicant tried to register “PERLAGE” for mineral water
• Polish Patent Office said it described carbonation (“sparkling effect”)

Court reasoning

• Distinctiveness must be assessed from the perspective of the average Polish consumer
• If consumers associate the term with a product characteristic → it is descriptive

Outcome

• Initially refused because “perlage” suggests bubbles/effervescence

Legal principle

If a word describes product characteristics in consumer perception, it cannot be registered.

Kombucha relevance

Kombucha often uses descriptors like:

• “sparkling”
• “fermented”
• “gut health”
• “probiotic”

These can be treated exactly like “perlage” → functional descriptors

✔ Lesson: Wellness descriptors = high risk of refusal

CASE 3: “Piekarnia i Kawiarnia Lajkonik” (EU General Court, 2025)

Facts

• Trademark owner lost rights due to lack of genuine use
• Evidence of market use was weak

Court ruling

• Trademark rights require:
  • real commercial use
  • continuous market presence
• No presumption of use

Legal principle

Trademark protection is not theoretical—it must reflect real market activity.

Kombucha relevance

Many kombucha/wellness brands:

• launch niche products
• then stop production
• or shift to seasonal sales

Risk:

• trademark cancellation for non-use after 5 years

✔ Lesson: wellness startups must maintain real market presence

CASE 4: eBilet + EUIPO Distinctiveness Principle (Repeated EU jurisprudence trend)

This is reinforced across multiple EUIPO and General Court decisions:

Principle established:

• Minimal differences in wording do NOT create distinctiveness
• Common health/wellness terms are weak trademarks

Example reasoning pattern:

• “Healthy + Drink”
• “Bio + Beverage”
• “Natural + Kombucha”

→ considered descriptive combinations

Why it matters

Even combinations like:

• “Kombucha Vital”
• “Wellness Brew Kombucha”

may still fail unless:

• they are highly imaginative or arbitrary

✔ Lesson: weak conceptual creativity = refusal risk

CASE 5: “Lajkonik” trademark revocation reasoning (EU General Court, 2025)

Facts

• Trademark revoked partly for lack of evidence of market use
• EUIPO demanded:
  • receipts
  • sales data
  • advertising proof

Court ruling

• Weak or generalized evidence = insufficient

Legal principle

Burden of proof lies entirely on trademark owner

Kombucha relevance

Many wellness brands rely on:

• influencer marketing
• social media presence
• small-scale production

But courts require:

• concrete commercial proof

✔ Lesson: Instagram presence ≠ legal trademark use

CASE 6 (Broader EU influence): “Audi AG v GQ” (CJEU, 2024)

Key principle

• Even well-known brands must prove distinctiveness and avoid descriptive usage expansion
• Overreach into descriptive language is restricted

Why it matters for kombucha

Brands cannot monopolize:

• “health”
• “natural”
• “organic”
• “functional beverage”

These remain public descriptive terms

✔ Lesson: EU protects descriptive freedom strongly

HOW THESE CASES APPLY TO KOMBUCHA IN POLAND

1. High refusal risk words in kombucha trademarks

Polish/EU authorities typically reject:

• “Kombucha Wellness”
• “Healthy Kombucha”
• “Detox Brew”
• “Natural Probiotic Drink”

Because of:

• descriptiveness doctrine (Perlage case)
• consumer perception standard (eBilet case)

2. Branding strategy that works in Poland

To succeed legally, kombucha brands should use:

Strong (registrable) marks:

• invented words (e.g., “Zymera,” “KombuVita”)
• arbitrary names (non-descriptive)
• fantasy branding

Weak (risky) marks:

• ingredient-based names
• health claims in name
• functional descriptors

3. Enforcement problems in wellness sector

From Lajkonik + EUIPO trends:

• non-use → cancellation risk
• weak evidence → loss of protection
• descriptive marks → easy to invalidate

FINAL CONCLUSION

Polish and EU case law shows a consistent pattern:

Kombucha/wellness trademarks fail when:

• they describe health benefits
• they use generic wellness vocabulary
• they rely on design to compensate for descriptiveness

They succeed when:

• they are invented or arbitrary names
• they do not directly describe kombucha’s health function
• they have strong commercial usage evidence