The Polish Ministry of Justice has sent me some official statistics regarding IP cases in 2006, 2007 and 2008. You may expect a post regarding this issue which will be available at class46.eu soon. Meanwhile, I recommend you my old post titled “Some stats“.
Archive for: December, 2008
Some stats at the end of the year
December 30th, 2008, Tomasz RychlickiJust register or do not sue
December 23rd, 2008, Tomasz RychlickiWell… one could came to such conclusions reading article available at informationweek.com website regarding the case Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 3:08-CV-03251 (N.D.Cal., July 3, 2008). But according to Apple’s statements and pleadings the company is the legitimate owner of, among others, United States copyright registrations TX4-669-971 (Mac OS); TX5-401-457 (Mac OS X); TX6-849-489 (Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5); TX4-991-736 (Mac OS X Server); and TX6-849-684 (Mac OS X Server Version 10.5 Leopard). Anyway, I’d like to recommend you to read my post entitled “Copyright registration” as a quick reminder for all my readers about differences in copyright registration requirements or lack thereof.
“Piracy” in Poland
December 22nd, 2008, Tomasz RychlickiBy the term “piracy” I do not mean “an offense against humanity” as defined in U.S. v. Furlong, 18 U.S. 184, 5 L. Ed. 64 (1820) or that “the crime of piracy comprehends an act upon the high seas” (61 Am Jur 2d Piracy § 8). Although, I am being aware of the Oxford English Dictionary definitions such as “1603 T. Dekker Wonderfull Yeare sig. A4, Banish these Word-pirates (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme” or “1668 J. Hancock Brooks’ String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies” or “1703 D. Defoe True-born Englishman in True Collect. I. Expan. Pref. sig. B3v, Its being Printed again and again by Pyrates” or even “1706 D. Defoe Jure Divino Pref. p. xxvii, Gentlemen-Booksellers that threatned to Pyrate it, as they call it, viz. reprint it, and sell it for half a Crown”.
Anyway, according to the article which is available at onet.pl website, in Polish, the District Court in Koszalin has sentenced Łukasz D. – a former student of the Koszalin University of Technology (Politechnika Koszalińska) for a half year of imprisonment for computer “piracy”. The judgment was suspended for two years. The court found Łukasz D. guilty of the theft of 49 programs (of a total value of 180 709,66 PLN). Łukasz D. could even face 10 years in prison, but the court took into account his attitude during the investigation, and mitigated the sentence. The mitigation was also requested by the prosecutor in his final speech.
The case of 19 students from Koszalin who were involved in copyright infringement in P2P networks was widely publicized in Poland because the Police, Customs officers and private investigators from the Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry did not inform the vice chancellor of the Koszalin University of Technology (for my US English readers – the president) about their action which took place in university’s dorms. Academia authorities have deemed such operation as violation of the autonomy of universities and challenged the search action (which was performed without a proper search warrant, just on the basis of an official legitimacy of the Police) before the Public Prosecutor’s office. The Police search action was also officially condemned by the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland and students organized pickets at the center of Koszalin. However, the Public Prosecutor’s office considered the complaint as unfounded and approved the dorms’ search.
Poland: cross-border reputation
December 21st, 2008, Tomasz RychlickiOn 7 February 1996, the American company Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol has applied before the Polish Patent Office (PPO) to register the word-figurative trade mark “TIFFANY & BROADWAY, Inc.” R-153643 in class 3 for goods such as hair care preparations, washing and cleaning preparations, teeth cleaning preparations, shoe polish, skin-care preparations, dish washing preparations, deodorants, perfumes, eau de Cologne, in class 5 for goods such as dietetic substances adapted for medical use and food for babies, in class 8 for goods such as cutlery and razors, in class 16 for paper tablecloths, in class 18 for trunks and suitcases, umbrellas and parasols, saddlery, belts, gallantry made of leather and imitation leather as well as for goods in classes 24, 25, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. The PPO granted the application on 1 April 2004. In this case the term of 8 years of trade mark application proceedings was not a joke at all.
The cancellation proceedings were started by another American company – Tiffany & Co. from New York – based on article 8(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 later amendments:
A trade mark shall not be registrable if:
(i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;
The New York’s company claimed that its trade marks had a reputation and were famous and that the Tiffany & Broadway registration was made in bad faith, leading to the watering down (early Polish translation of dilution concept) of Tiffany’s trade marks. The PPO agreed and invalidated the contested trade mark. Tiffany & Broadway appealed to the Voivodeship Administratice Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The company noted that Tiffany & Co. did not provide evidence of any business activity in Poland and that none of New York’s company trade marks had been registered in Poland. According to Tiffany & Broadway article 8(1) does not provide protection for famous marks, or marks that should be protected despite the absence of registration. The PPO responded that although it is true that the goods that are signed by Tiffany & Co trade marks are available in Poland only in the secondary circulation/market, but its trade marks are renowned and associated and perceived by consumers with luxury goods, among other things, thanks to the novel and the movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s“.
The Voivodeship Administratice Court in Warsaw dismissed the appeal in its judgment of 24 October 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 214/08. The Court held that there is no doubt regarding the reputation of TIFFANY trade mark. There are very few so strong and famous brands. In the court’s opinion the Tiffany’s trade mark is very attractive and it has huge advertising value. Tiffany has also proved its international reputation and it was not obliged to prove its existence specifically in Poland, because, in the Court’s view, the reputation is international/world wide – across borders. The VAC held that Tiffany & Broadway was aware of the existence of Tiffany’s reputation and trade mark registration for Tiffany & Broadway could lead to dilution of Tiffany’s trade marks.
Very good questions
December 19th, 2008, Tomasz RychlickiQuis custodiet ipsos custodes? asked Juvenal in Satires, VI, 347. My friend Piotr Waglowski asks very important and more specific questions (in Polish language) regarding the operation of Warsaw’s CCTV systems. It all started when he received internal documents about bonuses that every employee receives when he observes and spot a crime. There are no bonuses for counteracting of such crimes. The director of Zakład Obsługi Systemu Monitoringu set rates for bonuses based on crimes that each employee spots. There is 15 points for crimes such as robbery, rape, fight and 3 points for an offence of “hooligans’ nature” such as damaging the property, 2 points for driving intoxicated, theft or appropriation of property of value below 250 PLN (it is an offence not a crime under the Polish law) and also 2 points for wanted persons and juvenile who are present on streets after 10 pm. There is also 1 point for “persons lying down” – which probably means drunk or homeless person.
|:-() ®
December 17th, 2008, Tomasz RychlickiThe Internets rumble about Russian businessman Oleg Teterin and his trade mark rights to ;-) sign. I would like to recommend you comments available at userfriendly.org website.
Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 1827/08
December 12th, 2008, Tomasz RychlickiThe Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 11 December 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1827/08, ruled that the protection of an industrial design may only apply to the appearance of an object – its external appearance, not to its internal structure. The cassation compliant bought before the Supreme Administrative Court was rejected in a decision of 16 December 2009, case file II GSK 238/09.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Zadaszenie drzwi” (in English: door canopy), Rp-9201.
See also my post entitled “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
Thin line
December 7th, 2008, Tomasz RychlickiWhen copyright meets criminal law. Where art leads to jail. Nevertheless, I recommend…
Poland: special law for Euro 2012 trade marks?
December 4th, 2008, Tomasz RychlickiIn the article entitled “Nie każdy może skorzystać na Euro 2012“, the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita published recent news regarding Euro 2012 brands. According to Rzeczpospolita, all companies that would like to exploit the production of gadgets related to Euro 2012 will have to reckon on their limitations, because all the trade mark rights and patents belong to the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). Their rights will be probably clarified by a special law.
Soon there will be available a manual for companies with instructions on how to obtain a licence to use the logo and name Euro 2012. It’ll be made on the model of the manual for the 2012 Olympic Games in London. PL 2012 (which is the coordinator and overseer of preparation undertakings for Euro 2012 in Poland) also wants to cooperate with the Police and Customs officers to eliminate imports of clothing that infringe on trade marks rights.
A major challenge for organizers will be ambush marketing, because examples of this kind of activity appeared during the championships in Austria and Switzerland. To avoid such problems there will be created a so-called “clean area” around stadiums, where companies which are competitors of the tournament sponsors will not be allowed to place their ads or logos and trade marks. Also, UEFA does not want to let online bookmakers to appear or being involved in sponsorship of Euro 2012. Accordingly, all ads of online bookmakers (formally, this kind of betting is banned in Poland) should disappear from the vicinity of stadiums.