Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » 2009

Archive for: April, 2009

Copyright law, case II CR 244/71

April 29th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that the copyrighted can be any work, if – at least in its form – it shows some elements of creativity, even the minimum. See for instance a judgement of the Supreme Court of 31 March 1953, case file II C 834/52. As a subject of copyright law have been considered health and safety instructions – judgement of the Supreme Court of 23 July 1971, case file II CR 244/71, unpublished, instructions for operating a machine – judgement of the Supreme Court of 25 April 1969, case file I CR 76/69, published at OSNCP 1970, No. 1, item 15, train timetables, cookbooks, patterns and forms – judgement of the Supreme Court of 8 November 1932, Zb OSN 1933, poz.7.

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

Trade mark law, case V CSK 109/08

April 24th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

VKR Holding A/S from Horsholm sued Polish company OKPOL for trade mark infrigement and the delict of unfair competition. The suit was based on article 296(2)(iii) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments.

Infringement of the right of protection for a trade mark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(iii) a trade mark identical or similar to a renowned trade mark registered for any kind of goods, if such use without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the user or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

The suit was also based on Article 3(1) the 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 later amendments.

The act of unfair competition shall be the activity contrary to the law or good practices which threatens or infringes the interest of another entrepreneur or customer.

The District Court ruled that the figurative element of the trade mark in question, and its characteristic composition, have more influence on consumer awareness and subconscious than does their verbal aspect and that it is therefore necessary to protect VKR Holding’s brand, even if there are differences between the competing signs in verbal aspects. The court held that the signs are similar and that VELUX, being the renowned one, should benefit from the increased legal protection, as compared to “normal” i.e. the later mark of OKPOL company. The Polish company did not agree with such findings and filed an appeal complaint.

R-63259

The Court of Appeal in its judgment of 3 October 2007, shared the conclusions and assessments of the court of first instance that VELUX brand has the status of a reputable and renowned trade mark, and that word-figurative sign OKPOL is similar to VELUX which brings the risk of association between these signs. The risk of confusion is determined by the dominant element that both marks share – the red rectangle. According to the Court there is a similarity between disputed trade marks because of the overall visual impression and there is no significant difference in the word characters. The Court of Appeal also agreed for the admissibility of granting the protection under article 3(1) of the CUC because OKPOL’s action were in Court’s opinion very parasitic. In the Court’s view such behaviour was based on taking the advantage of VELUX’s renown and should be deemed an act of unfair competition, as behaviour contrary to the principles of good practices, which should be based honesty in business.

The Polish company filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland in which it asked three important questions:
(a) May a person try to prohibit the use of a registered trade mark, referring to the right of registration of another trade mark?
(b) Is the protection of well-known/renowned trade marks based on the article 296(2)(iii) of the IPL or may it be protected also with reference to the provisions of the Act on combating unfair competition?
(c) How far one person can monopolize the principle of creating trade marks, especially word-figurative trade marks in relation to commonly encountered combination of colours and shapes that are used on the market?

The Polish Supreme Court in its judgment of 23 October 2008 case file V CSK 109/08 agreed with the lower courts that the risk of association should be based on similiarity of figurative elements that both trade marks share. In court’s opinion, the overall visual impression is the basis for creating a positive image of VELUX products and it decides on the risk of association, in consequence, enabling for the parasitic use of the mark by the Polish company and which also led to dilution of the distinctive character and reputation associated with the VELUX trade mark.

R-183931

The Court also ruled that, if the use of a registered trade mark infringes on a previously registered trade mark, the infringer should refrain from using his right of protection because it is not a subject to protection based on rules of the civil law. The protection granted by the Polish Patent Office has only a formal aspect and it is governed by the administrative proceedings. In case of trade mark infringement it is up to the civil court to decide during the civil proceedings whether trade mark that was registered later should be afforded legal protection. There is no reason and no need to file a request for invalidation of the right of protection before the PPO.

In the answer to the second question the SC based its answer on the wording of Article 1(2) of the IPL.

The provisions of this Law shall not prejudice the protection of the subject matter referred to in paragraph (1)(i) [i.e. the relationships in the field of inventions, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, geographical indications and topographies of integrated circuits], provided for in other legal acts.

The protection of renowned trade marks is afforded by both acts. As regards “monopolization”, the SC ruled that the Polish company was banned from using a sign that associates to a specific sign used by the VKR Holding A/S. Accordingly no-one was granted a protection right to the principle of creating a trade mark.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2284/08

April 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 1990 Zygmunt Piotrowski, well-know Polish graphic artist, created the logotype that depicted the porch with columns and attic finial of the Penderecki’s house in Luslawice with “heritage” inscription underneath. It was created for the Heritage Promotion of Music and Art company, whose founders were Elżbieta Penderecka and Janusz Pietkiewicz, later the director of the Polish National Opera. The logotype was adopted by the Heritage Films company that was founded in 1991 by Janusz Pietkiewicz and Lech Rywin after the withdrawal of Elżbieta Penderecka from Heritage Promotion of Music and Art company.

Heritage

At the request of Heritage Films, the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 27 June 2001, act signature Sp. 3/97 invalidated Heritage trade mark R-87806 belonging to the Piotrowski’s company. The Supreme Administrative Court in its decision of 14 December 2001, case file II SA 3446/01, confirmed the decision of the PPO, and dismissed the cassation complaint. The SAC clearly stated that the English word “heritage” is not a generic term for the services it was registered for, nor does it inform about its properties, quality or usefulness. Therefore “heritage” word can be used as a trade mark. It is not widely known or used in the market in order to identify such services as impresario and management consultancy services, the recruitment and placement of people for work for orchestra, soloists and artists of various disciplines of art. However the court held the the company name could be an obstacle to grant the rights of protection for a trade mark. It was unclear for the SAC why the PPO’s decision lacks the explanation as to why the picture of the porch with the HERITAGE inscription makes the right to the company name (which was existing from 1991) impossible to be applicable as grounds for the invalidation. If the reason would be the recognition of HERITAGE word to be protected by copyright law as the title, it should be better clarified. It was more necessary for the Court because the title could benefit from the copyright protection “only in very exceptional circumstances”.

The case went back to the PPO. On 17 April 2002 the Polish Patent Office invalidated of the right of protection of HERITAGE trade mark R-87806. One more time Mr Piotrowski filed a complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC in its judgment of 12 March 2003, act signature II SA 1867/02, ruled that in accordance with the general rules, in the event of a collision between company name (the firm) and trade mark that has been registered with the “later precedence”, the priority shall be given to the right that existed earlier.

A year later, the Polish Patent Office registered Heritage Films trade mark R-151966. Zygmunt Piotrowski has requested the invalidation proceedings argued that the Heritage Films trade mark infringes on his personal and economic rights afforded by the copyright law regulations. The PPO rejected the request claiming the word “heritage” is a common expression and regardless of its importance for the artist it is not eligible for the copyright protection. Piotrowski filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 15 April 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2284/08 ruled that the word “heritage” has no distinctive character and may be registered only in composition with some other description. And because it is not a subject of copyright protection the request had to be dismissed. Zygmunt Piotrowski has already announced he is going to file a cassation complaint.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 109/09

April 19th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 4 April 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 109/09, ruled that is not important, who disclosed the design. The PPO correctly pointed out on the wording of article 103(3)(ii) of the IPL.

1. An industrial design shall be considered new if, before the date according to which priority to obtain a right in registration is determined and subject to paragraph (2), no identical design has been made available to the public, i.e. used, exhibited or otherwise disclosed. Designs shall also be deemed to be identical with those made available to the public if their features differ only in immaterial details.
(…)
3. The provision of paragraph (1) shall not prevent a right in registration to be granted, if a design:
(…)
ii) has been disclosed during 12-month period preceding the date according to which priority to obtain a right in registration is determined, by the designer, his successor in title or a third person with the right holder’s consent, as well as if the disclosure has occurred as a consequence of an abuse in relation to the designer or his successor in title.

Only the disclosure by the creator, his legal successor, or – with the consent of the holder – by a third party, and if the disclosure was made as a result of abuse in relation to the creator or his successor in the 12 months period before the priority date, does not harm the novelty requirement, any other publicly available disclosure of a design is an obstacle for the novelty requirement.

This case concerned the industrial design “Parapet okienny” (in English: windowsill), Rp-10571.

Wzór Przemysłowy 10571

See also “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 762/08

April 12th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Bauer Publishing House owns the word-figurative trade mark TWÓJ STYL R-69382 which is registered for goods such as printed matter, newspapers, magazines, books, packaging, clothing, shoes, advertisement services for third-party hotel and catering services. In 2007 the Polish Patent Office issued a decision on the lapse of the right of protection for TWÓJ STYL trade mark in class 25 for goods such as clothing and shoes. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw agreed with PPO’s decision and rejected Bauer’s complaint in its judgment of 6 February 2008, act signature VI SA/Wa 1418/07. The Company filed a cassation complaint.

R-69382

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 March 2009 case file II GSK 762/08 has rejected Bauer’s cassation complaint. The SAC ruled that, according to Polish case law and legal doctrine, the “genuine use” of a trade mark should be directed towards the consolidation of the brand in the market and should seek for its awareness between consumers and competitors. The opposite to “genuine use” is usually the occasional action taken in order to avoid a non-use accusations and actions that are taken other than for purposes of actual business activity. As part of the obligation to make genuine use of a mark, Polish doctrine established the concept of “preparatory action”, which allows to preserve of the right of protection for a trade mark and possible refutation of the non-use allegations. Examples of such “preparatory action” are: a contract of the importation of goods bearing the trade mark, intense advertising in the media or a license agreement for trade mark use. These are activities that aim to genuinely use a trade mark and such actions should be temporarily and functionally associated with the future use of a trade mark. According to the PPO’s findings the owner of TWÓJ STYL trade mark sold clothing with this sign, but this activity ended in 1998 with the last sale of these products.

Polish regulations on prohibited contractual provisions

April 8th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

I. The Law
The main sources of binding laws in the Republic of Poland are the Constitution of 2 April 1997, acts passed by the Parliament, ratified international treaties and regulations issued, for example, by the Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers – Polish government. Regulations are issued for the purpose of implementation of acts.

I.A. Substantive law

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 later amendments.
Act of the protection of certain consumer rights and on the liability for damage caused by a dangerous product – PCCR – (in Polish: ) , Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 31 March 2000, No. 22 , item 271.
Act on protection of the purchasers of the right to use a building or residential unit for a specified time each year and on amendment to the Civil Code, Code of Minor Offenses,and the Law on Land and Mortgage Registers and Mortgage, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2000, No. 74, item 855.
Act on specific terms and conditions of consumer sale and amendments to the Civil Code.
Act of 16 February 2007 on competition and consumer protection, Journal of Laws – CCP – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2007, No. 50, item 331.
Act of 23 August 2007 on combating unfair commercial practices – CUCP – (in Polish: ustawa o przeciwdziałaniu nieuczciwym praktykom rynkowym), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 171, item 1206.

I.B. Case law
See “Polish case law on abusive clauses in B2C IT and IP contracts“.

II. Prohibited contractual provisions
Prohibited contractual provisions or “abusive clauses” are understood as provisions of the contract concluded with the consumer that were not agreed individually and in consequence shape consumer’s rights and obligations in a manner contrary to good customs and grossly violate consumer’s interests. Such provisions are not binding on the consumer, but the parties are bound by other provisions of the contract.

In accordance with the provisions of article 385³ of the Civil Code, if in doubt – it is considered that unlawful contractual provisions are those that, in particular:

exclude or seriously limit the liability to the consumer for failure to perform or improper performance of an obligation,
provide provisions, of which the consumer was unable to get acquaint with before concluding the contract,
impose solely on the consumer an obligation to pay a fixed sum in the case of the resignation from the conclusion or performance of the contract,
impose on the consumer, who has not performed the obligations or departed from the contract, the obligation to pay grossly inflated penalty or smart money,
exclude the jurisdiction of Polish courts or submit the matter to a Polish or foreign arbitration court, or other authority, and impose the adjudication by the court which is not locally relevant according to the Civil Code.

These are couple of examples of the so-called “gray abusive clauses”.

III. Procedure
The District Court in Warsaw, the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection decides if a given provision is prohibited and abusive. Anyone who has been or may be offered a contract containing such a clause, consumer organizations, consumer ombudsmen and the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection may bring an action before the Court. Consumers may obtain assistance from the local consumer ombudsman or one of the state-funded consumer organizations.

The clauses which have been found abusive by a final decision of the Court are entered into the Register of Prohibited Clauses that is available on the website of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection and as of this moment cannot be used in relations with consumers. The application of such clauses may be regarded as an infringement of collective consumer interests and may result in a fine of up to 10% of the trader’s revenue.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1042/08

April 3rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On July 2003 the French company Bongrain S.A. from Viroflay asked the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection for APETITO IR-615850 trade mark. The Polish Patent Office must consider whether there has been a lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark at the request of any party having a legitimate interest. The French company claimed its interest based on trade mark application to register the word trade mark APETITO Z-204328.

The request was based on articles 169(1)(i) 169(2) and 169(6) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments.

1. The right of protection for a trade mark shall also lapse:
(i) on failure to put to genuine use of the registered trade mark for the goods covered by the registration for a period of five successive years after a decision on the grant of a right of protection has been taken, unless serious reasons of non-use thereof exist,
(…)

6. Where a proceeding for the declaration of the right of protection lapsed is initiated, the burden of proof that the trade mark has been used or that serious reasons for non-use of the trade mark exist shall be on the holder of the right of protection.

The Polish Patent Office decided on the lapse of the right of protection for APETITO IR-615850 trade mark in part concerning the goods in Class 29. The owner – APETITO AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT – filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 September 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1042/08 dismissed the case and ruled that in order to aviod the situation of non-use of a trade mark, the use has to take place in the territory of the Republic of Poland. It has to have an unequivocal nature, as well as being real and serious, and should apply to a registered trade mark for goods and services covered. The actual use of a trade mark to prevent the lapse of the right of protection should consist of affixing the mark to goods and putting of such designated goods on the market within a specified period of time. The period of time is crucial for a revocation of the right protection. The preparatory steps to use the trade mark cannot be equated with the reasons to justify the occurrence of non-use of a trade mark. Taking certain preparatory steps which are without a connection with a valid reason that is preventing the use of a trade mark can not determine a dismissal of a request to decide on the lapse of the right of protection. The judgment is not final yet. APETITO AG filed a cassation complaint. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 120/09“.