Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » 2008

Archive for: January, 2008

C-275/06, Promusicae

January 29th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) do not require the Member States to lay down, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an obligation to communicate personal data in order to ensure effective protection of copyright in the context of civil proceedings. However, Community law requires that, when transposing those directives, the Member States take care to rely on an interpretation of them which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order. Further, when implementing the measures transposing those directives, the authorities and courts of the Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.

Details about this case in the judgment C-275/06, Promusicae.

Copyright law, case III CZP 107/07

January 24th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its order of 6 December 2007 case file III CZP 107/07 held that a party who is not satisfied with the decision of the Copyright Commission, may bring a judicial action before the competent district court, within a period of 14 days of the notification of the said decision, only after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Copyright Commission. It is known as the so-called inadmissibility of the courts’ proceedings.

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

Categories: Art. 108 ARNR | collecting society | Copyright Commission | Polish Supreme Court | remuneration fee.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 279/07

January 8th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Company Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH tried to register the word trade mark AZOR in Class 3 in Poland, but the same mark was already registered and had been in force since 1995. Its owner – ORO Produkte Marketing International GmbH – reached an agreement with Plus regarding its registration. However, the Polish Patent Office rejected Plus’ trade mark application. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its jugment of 14 March 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 2314/06 dismissed a complaint brought by Plus. The Court uphold the PPO’s decision and ruled that the Polish Act on Industrial Property Law provides no exceptions for registration of a mark that is identical to an earlier trade mark, and the goods or services for which the trade mark is applied for are identical.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 December 2007 case file II GSK 279/07, has confirmed the lower Court’s judgment and ruled that a letter of consent cannot be used as ground to register such trade mark since the Republic of Poland did not implement Article 4(5) of the First Council Directive 89/104. This article is one of the provisions of Community law which leaves the freedom of Member States regarding the implementation of their national law. It has no direct effect for individuals. This provision has been implemented into the Polish Industrial Property Law, only with regard to trade marks for which protection has lapsed.

Trade mark law, case V ACa 469/07

January 7th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The District Court in Częstochowa in its judgment case file V GC 83/04 and the Appellate Court in Katowice in its judgment case file V ACa 469/07 ruled that the name DELICJE (better known by English readers as Jaffa cakes is not distinctive. This holding ends the legal battle that was started by Lu Polska S.A. (owned by Kraft Food) against five other companies.

However, this judgment is not congruent with other courts’ decisions regarding the Delicje R-70513 trade mark. The District Court in Warsaw ruled on 27 march 2007 that the Tago Company, owned by Tadeusz Gołębiowski, which produces Delicje, Delicje Mazowieckie, Delicante and Fruktolicja cakes, infringed Lu Polska’s trade mark.

Unfair competition, case II CR 367/87

January 3rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The French company Interagra, seated in Paris, demanded the cease of use of the same name by an international enterprise established in Poznań by a Dutch citizen. The company was registered in 1983 in the Register of International Companies in Poznań by Barthold Asauerus van Doom, and operated on the whole Polish market. This company has also registered Interagra trade marks R-61166 and R-61280. However, long before these events, the company Interagra SA started its operation in France. Both companies operated in the field of agricultural products and food. The company Interagra from Poznań knew about the existence of the French one, because Interagra SA had established commercial links with Polish foreign trade centrals (entities that were allowed to cooperate with foreign businesses during the communism era in Poland).

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 June 1988 case file II CR 367/87 held that in case of marking/designating of the undertaking in a way which may mislead customers in relation to its identity, any act that infringes or violates the rules of fair competition exhausts the conditions set out in Article 2 of the Act of 1926 on combating unfair competition, which is also valid for the provision of the Article 5 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 1215/07

January 2nd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 October 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 1215/07 decided on the novelty of an industrial design based on electronic evidences. The court ruled that such evidences are not sufficient. A CD print-out from a database can not be treated as a legal document with an unquestionable date since there are graphical tools which make a modification of such data an easily possibility. In this case such a proof can not be deemed a proper evidence if it is not properly certified. Also a statement issued by a private company is not enough unless it is supported by invoices or official publications of catalogues of exhibitions where such product was shown. A compact disk has to be certified by an expert as regards to a date it was burned.

This case concerned the industrial design “Rękojeść sztućców” (in English: handle for cutlery), Rp-6048.

Rp-6048

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 29 July 2008 case file II GSK 267/08 upheld this decision.