Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » 2005

Archive for: April, 2005

Copyright law, case I ACr 453/95

April 26th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 5 July 1995, case file I ACr 453/95, unpublished, held that on the grounds of the copyright law one has to oppose the actions of a creative nature against the technical operation and actions. The result of the latter is verifiable and repeatable, and its accomplishment only requires specific knowledge and efficiency. It is possible to predict a specific result of such actions. The feature of creativity, and thus the work itself, is the individual recognition and uniqueness of the accomplished result, in other words, the objective novelty, originality, autonomous creation, the creator’s personality projection as reflected in the work, whose effect is unpredictable, as the final result of the creative work (at least some elements).

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | copyright law | copyrightable subject matter | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Appeallate Court.

Polish regulations on copyright

April 18th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

I. Introduction
To begin with, I have to write about the less or more important translation problem. The main Polish “copyright” act is the Polish Act of 4 February 1994 on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 90, item 631, with subsequent amendments. As you can see there is no “copyright” in the title of this act. Due to the fact that the Polish law originates from the Civil law and Roman law, it shares the concept of authors rights being intangible personal/moral and economic rights owned, in general, by the creator of a protected work (the author or co-authors – the holder). This is the concept of the so-called dualism of author’s rights, which originates from the French doctrine of author’s rights that was first introduced and developed by M. Henri Desbois. However, I am going to use the word “copyright” to describe all economic rights attributed to the author or the owner of a protected work (the holder). These economic rights include inter alia the right to copy a work, distribute, etc.

II. The law
- The Act of 4 February 1994 on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 90, item 631, with subsequent amendments.

III. The subject matter of copyright
According to the provisions of Article 1 of the ARNR The subject matter of copyright is any expression of creative activity having individual character and manifested in any material form, regardless of the value, intended purpose and manner of expression thereof (the work). The case law and the Polish legal doctrine share the view that the immaterial work, under the copyright law should demonstrate all of the following characteristics:
- it must be the result of the activity of man, i.e. the creator of the work, where a manifestation of activity means every manifested result of action,
- it must be a manifestation of creative activity,
- it must have an individual character.
See J. Barta, “Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz“, Dom Wydawniczy ABC, Warszawa 2001, p. 68.

To be continued…

See also “Polish case law on copyright“.

Categories: copyright law | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish law | regulations.

Trade mark law, case GSK 864/04

April 11th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 November 2004 case file GSK 864/04 held that according to Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985 Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments, an undefined trademark, i.e. a trade mark which is not represented in one form, does not possess any sufficient ability to distinguish goods. This judgment concerned a trade mark that was filled according to the Madrid system of international registration of marks.

IR-667827

The trade mark IR-667827 owned by FERRERO S.p.A. is represented in the double color composition (the lower part is in white and the top part is in orange). The Court ruled that there was no justification for the argument that the composition or combination of colors, that could serve as a trade mark, has to meet other and additional requirements, such as novelty and originality of form or compositions of colors, i.e. it has to be a manifestation of creativity. However, an undefined sign, that does not exist in one and the same form, is not able to create and capture the consumer associations as to the origin of goods from one and the same entrepreneur. So, such a sign is not sufficiently distinctive. A simple composition of two or more colors, without shape or contour, or the combination of these colors in every possible configuration, does not meet the accuracy and uniformity that is required to perform the function of the trade mark in order to be registered. Such inaccurate representation of the sign which is the combination of colors presented in an abstract (no contours) may lead to many different variations, which in turn, will not allow the consumer to perceive and remember this sign, and thus re-purchase the goods originating from the same company.