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

Archive for: December, 2009

Administrative, civil and criminal proceedings in trade mark cases in Poland

December 22nd, 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. The main legal acts on trade mark protection in the Republic of Poland are the following.

I.A. Substantive law

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.
Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.
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

I.B. Procedural law

Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments.
Act on proceedings before administrative courts – PBAC – (in Polish:Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi) of 30 August 2002, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270, with later amendments.
Civil Proceedings Code – CPC (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 43, item 296, with later amendments
Criminal Proceedings Code – CRPC – (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Karnego) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 89, item 555, with later amendments.
Act on Patent Attorneys – APAT – (in Polish: ustawa o rzecznikach patentowych) of 11 April 2001, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 49, item 509, with subsequent amendments,

I.C. EU law
Since 1 May 2004 which was the accession day to the EU, the Republic of Poland has been bound by all aquis communitaire including the Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR). The CTMR is a part of the Polish Legal system and is directly aplicable by Polish Courts, especially by the Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs which is located in Warsaw (in Polish: Sad Okregowy w Warszawie Wydzial XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych).

II. Different routes, different proceedings
The right of protection for a sign being capable to be registered as a trade mark is granted by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (PPO). Trade mark holders in the Republic of Poland may protect their rights in civil and criminal proceedings. Moreover, they may also use the procedures before customs authorities.

The Republic of Poland is not a common law country and the courts are not bound by decisions of other courts. However Polish judges tend to widely recognise the decisions and verdicts of the Polish Courts of Appeal and the Polish Supreme Court. Only resolutions of the Supreme Court that are decided as a legal principle are universally binding. The decisions of foreign bodies such as the General Court and Court of Justice of EU may be recognised only as so-called persuasive precedents.

II. A. Administrative proceedings in trade mark cases
The Patent Office of the Republic of Poland is a central government agency responsible inter alia for receiving and examination of applications seeking protection for trade marks and deciding in matters related to granting rights of protection trade marks (decisions with regard to processing of national and International trade mark applications, decisions on the invalidation and the lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark etc.). The provisions of the Code of Administrative Proceedings shall apply accordingly to litigation procedure before the Patent Office in cases not regulated by the IPL. Decisions made or orders issued by the PPO are liable to complaint lodged to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. Judgments made by the VAC may be a subject of a cassation complaint filed before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).

II. B. Civil proceedings in trade mark cases
Trade mark infringement actions are brought before a District Court. There are no specific courts which have exclusive jurisdiction for resolving trade mark disputes, except the Court for Community Trade Marks and Community Designs which is strictly focused on the legal issues related to CTMs.

The Law on Industrial Property provides that a trademark owner’s rights will be deemed to have been infringed where there has been unlawful use of the mark in the course of trade, including unauthorized use of a trademark by a licensee and sublicensee. The remedies available to the trademark owner are as follows:

cessation of the infringement,
surrender of any unlawfully obtained profits,
compensatory damages in accordance with the relevant principles of the Civil Code or payment of a lump sum equivalent to a licence fee, or any other remuneration, which would have been due if the infringer had been authorized by the right holder to use the trademark. In this case, the trademark owner is obliged to prove that an intentional infringement of its rights has taken place,
announcement to the public of a verdict of the court (upon the request of a trade mark owner) as a whole or in part, or publication of information regarding the verdict,
a court order that the infringer (upon its own request, in case of unintentional infringement) to pay the relevant sum to the benefit of the trade mark owner if the cessation of infringement or forfeiture of the goods held by the infringer (means of manufacturing, materials) would be excessive, and the above-mentioned sum to be paid would fulfil the right holder’s interest.

The following cases, in particular, are also decided in civil law proceedings in accordance with the general principles of law:

for ascertainment of the authorship of an inventive project,
for ascertainment of the right to a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration,
for remuneration for the exploitation of an inventive project,
for remuneration for the exploitation of an invention, a utility model or a topography for state purposes,
for compensation for the transfer to the State Treasury of a right to a patent for a secret invention or to a right of protection for a secret utility model, a right of protection or a right in registration,
for infringement of a patent, a supplementary protection right, a right of protection or a right in registration,
for ascertainment of the right to exploit an invention, a utility model or an industrial design in the cases referred to in Articles 71 and 75 of the IPL,
for ascertainment of the right to use, in a local-scale activity, a mark registered on behalf of a third party as a trademark,
for ascertainment of the right to use a geographical indication,
for ascertainment of the loss of the right to use a geographical indication,
for the transfer of a patent, a right of protection for a utility model or a right in registration of an industrial design or a topography obtained by a person not entitled thereto,
for the transfer of a right of protection for a trad emark in the case referred to in Article 161 of the IPL.

II. C. Criminal proceedings in trade mark cases
The IPL defines counterfeit trademarks as identical trademarks illegally used or trade marks which in the course of trade can not be distinguished from the trade marks registered for the goods covered by the right of protection. The party aggrieved by the infringement has to commence a criminal action. Only after the filing of the motion can the proceedings be started and continued ex officio. The sole exception is when a person committing the crime in respect of a registered trade mark obtains permanent profits from its criminal activity or commits acts resulting in the turnover of counterfeit goods bearing the trade mark, which are of significant value. In such case the infringer is subject to more serious criminal penalties and proceedings will be started ex officio.

II. D. Custom seizures
Customs law, in addition to civil and criminal law, is the third administrative regime of protection for trade mark rights. Provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property are directly aplicable on the territory of the Republic of Poland. The application for action shall be submitted to the Polish Customs Chamber seated at Modlińska 4 Street, 03-216 Warsaw.

II. E. ADR in trade mark cases
Where a domain name including a trade mark has been registered by an unauthorized third party, the mark owner can use mediation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings or civil court action to obtain the cancellation or transfer of such domain. However, following a recent judgement of the Polish Competition and Consumer Protection Court of 26 December 2006, case act signature XVII AmC 170/05, ADR is unlikely to succeed if the disputed domain name is registered in the name of a natural person.

Computer crime, case II K 320/07

December 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Do you remember Cohen v. Google, Inc., 2009 WL 2883410 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 17, 2009)? If not, just see this short description available at citmedialaw.org website. And it looks like we will have a similar case in Poland. The Polish court wants Google to reveal its users data.

In the articled entitled “Google ma ujawnić e-maile“, the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita reports recent case of Jakub Świderski. Mr Świderski is a former councillor of Sopot town and a party of a criminal suit brought against him based on a private accusation/charge by Jacek Karnowski, the President of Sopot, (who has been served with seven corruption charges) and his former deputy Cezary Jakubowski. Karnowski and Jakubowski argue that they were insulted and offended by statements allegedly published by Świderski in the onepage magazine “Obserwator sopocki” (in English: “Sopot’s Observer”) that was distributed during local elections in 2006. They also claim that their “public confidence” was jeopardized by Świderski’ actions.

“Obserwator sopocki” was published only three times in 2006. Authors of published texts suggested illicit trade premises and municipal corruption. Karnowski said he had been particularly offended by a photograph depicting his caricature with the envelope in his hand suggesting that he is taking bribes.

Mr Karnowski argues that Świderski was the publisher of “Obserwator sopocki”. The problem is that it has to be proven. The newspaper was distributed on the streets, it was not registered as the press, and the authors wrote under pseudonyms/nicknames: takata1, rzeźniksopocki, wasp. Świderski did not admit that these were his nicknames. So far, the only evidence Karnowski had, was a statement issued by Świderski in which he said “To ja jestem głównym “Obserwatorem”" (in English: “I am the leading “Observer”").

The secret trial before the Regional Court Gdańsk-Południe, case file II K 320/07, was started three years ago. Świderski was charged based on privisions of article 212 of the Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments.

Article 212. § 1. Whoever imputes to another person, a group of persons, an institution or organisational unit not having the status of a legal person, such conduct, or characteristics that may discredit them in the face of public opinion or result in a loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type to activity
shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.

§ 2. If the perpetrator commits the act specified in § 1 through the mass media shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.

§ 3. When sentencing for an offence specified in §1 or 2, the court may adjudge a supplementary payment in favour of the injured person or of the Polish Red Cross, or of another social purpose designated by the injured person a supplementary payment (nawiązka).

§ 4. The prosecution of the offence specified in § 1 or 2 shall occur upon a private charge.

A few months ago Jakubowski and Karnowski requested the Court to issue an order for the disclosure of e-mail correspondence of Świderski. As Rzeczpospolita reports they asked the Court to exempt Google and Microsoft from the secrecy of correspondence, and to investigate by the Police of all IP addresses of persons, who corresponded with Świderski from July to November 2006. These are addresses registered at gmail.com and hotmail.pl.

Rzeczpospolita reports that Judge Ludwika Małkowska took into account the request of Karnowski to admit the evidence of “official secret information” and exempted Google Kraków (foreign controlled company whos parent company is Google). Judge Małkowska ordered Google Kraków to provide information on persons who registered e-mail addresses related to aforementioned nicknames, identities of all persons who have access to these accounts, from which IP addresses the correspondence was retrieved and what messages were sent to which of the e-mail addresses, together with their content. Judge Małkowska stated that in this case it is necessary to determine the person or persons responsible for the defamatory publications.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 120/09

December 13th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 September 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1042/08 dismissed a complaint against the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the lapse of the right of protection for APETITO IR-615850 trade mark in part concerning the goods in Class 29. See “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1042/08“. The owner – APETITO AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT – filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgmet of 6 October 2009 case file II GSK 120/09 dismissed the complaint and held that when a person who shows its legitimate interest file a request for the invalidation of a registered trade mark becasue of non-use, the owner of the right of protection for this trade mark has to show the use of the mark in question or the existence of valid reasons justifying non-use. The scope of holder’s duty is defined within the scope of legal interest arising from a standing to file a request for the invalidation.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 156/09

December 12th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 October 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 927/08 dismissed the complaint against the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the refusal to decide on the lapse of the right of protection of GAP R-171132 and GAP R-171135 trade mark owned by GAP (ITM) INC. Przedsiębiorstwo Prywatne GAPPOL Marzena Porczyńska who was the applicant in the case before the PPO, filed a cassation complaint against this decision.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 October 2009 case file II GSK 156/09 dismissed the compliant and held that pursuant to Article 315(1) of the IPL, the provisions of the old Trade Marks ACT are used to assess the effects of legal events occurring during their validity, while the effects of legal events that occurred after 22 August 2001, should be assessed under the provisions of the IPL, also when they related to the existing rights. To assess the effects of the expiry of the period/deadline that was required for recognizing the request to decide on the lapse of the right of protection as effective – if such a request was made after 22 August 2001, the provisions of the IPL should be used.

The Court held that in favor to adopt the date of issuance of the decision granting a right of protection as the starting point of the five-year period referred to in Article 169(1)(i) of the IPL, speaks the literal interpretation of this provision.

Article 169
1. The right of protection for a trademark shall also lapse:
(i) on failure to put to genuine use of the registered trademark 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.

The SAC reached such conclusions because the “registered trademark” as referred to in this article, appears only after the decision in the matter was issued, and not on the date of filing a trade mark application.

Polish case law on personal data protection

December 11th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Below you will find a list of judgments and decisions on personal data protection in the context of IT technologies. You can find a more detailed discussion on each judgment or decision under the link provided with the case file. All judgments and decisions are given in chronological order.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court of 7 October 2011 case file II SA/Wa 364/11.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 19 May 2011 case file I OSK 1086/10.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 19 May 2011 case file I OSK 1079/10.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 16 March 2011 case file II SA/Wa 2037/10.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, of 1 December 2010, case file II SA/Wa 1212/10. This judgment is not yet final.

- The decision of the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection of 13 September 2010 case file DOLiS/DEC-1013/10.

- The order of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15 July 2010 case file I OSK 1079/10. This decison is related to the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, of 3 February 2010, case file II SA/Wa 1598/09.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 May 2010, case file I OSK 963/09.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15 March 2010 case file I OSK 756/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, of 3 February 2010, case file II SA/Wa 1598/09. This judgment is not yet final. The cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw, of 18 November 2009, case file I OSK 667/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 26 August 2009 case file II SA/Wa 297/09.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 3 July 2009 case file I OSK 633/08.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 3 March 2009, case file II SA/Wa 1495/08.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 January 2009 case file I OSK 174/08.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 30 Novmeber 2007, case file II SA/Wa 71/07.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 9 February 2005, case file II SA/Wa 1085/04.

Copyright law, plagiarist pays

December 11th, 2009, Magdalena Gad

According to the recent article published by Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, entitled “Kurpisz ma wyrok za plagiat. I to z błędem!“, Kurpisz – Polish Publishing House from Poznan has been found guilty of plagiarism and has to pay PLN 148,000 as well as apologize to the journalist whose copyrights it infringed.

Kurpisz was accused of plagiarising by Andrzej Gowarzewski, a sports journalist from Katowice, the author of the Encyclopedia of World’s Soccer Championships (in Polish: “Encyklopedii piłkarskich mistrzostw świata”). Gowarzewski spent over a decade travelling around, in particular, South America collecting detailed data (such as the original spelling of the players names, exact time of the goals scored during the games, team composition) for his encyclopedia. His efforst were rewarded when british „World Soccer“ magazine – an undoubted authority in the field – has pronounced the book one of the 7 best books on soccer in the world.

Gowarzewski has been working and successively expanding his encyclopedia since 1991. In 2001 he came across a similar book, published by Kurpisz Publishing House. To his great astonishment the book contained information about 500 games, literally “carbon copied” from his work. The publisher repelled the accusations, claiming that it had used information commonly available and thus not protected by copyright, very much like the data in the yellow pages. Kurpisz arguments would have most likely prevailed, had it not been for the flair of the journalist, who set a smart trap for the publisher: Gowarzewski deliberatley made several material mistakes in his encyclopedia, just to subsequently find that they were repeated in the Kurpisz version of the book.

The District Court from Poznań had no reluctances finding the publisher guilty of plagiarism. It held that in copying such substantial data, thouroughly and personally collected over the years by the journalist, the Kurpisz has free ridden on the creative efforts of Gowarzewski and should pay him PLN 148,000 in damages (that is 15% of the proceeds from the sale of Kurpisz’s books, multiplied by 3, the so-called treble damages) based on article 79 the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, 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 later amendments.

Article 79
1. The entitled person whose author’s economic rights have been infringed, may request from a person who infringed these rights:
1) to put an end to the infringement,
2) to remove the results of the infringement;
3) to undo the damages:
a) based on general principles or
b) by payment of a sum of money equal to twice, and if the infringement is culpable – three times of the equitable remuneration, which at the time of the enforcement would be payable to the entitled person for granting the permission for the use of the work,
4) to return benefits received.

2. Regardless of the claims referred to in paragraph 1, the entitled person may request:
1) single or multiple announcement made in the press with the statement of appropriate content and form or to announce to the public a part or all of the court’s judgment in the considered case, in the manner and within the scope specified by the court,
2) to pay by the person who infringed author’s economic rights, the appropriate sum of money, not less than twice of the amount of firm benefit achived by the perpetrator of the infringement, to the Fund referred to in article 111, if the infringement is culpable and was made during the economic activities carried out in someone else or in his own name, even on someone else’s account.

The plagiarist must also publicly apologize to the author on the pages of a nation wide newspaper – Rzeczpospolita.

It has not been the first time that the Kurpisz Publishing House infringes copyrights of another and has to bear the consequences. In 2004 the court in a similar case imposed on the publisher a fine of over PLN 500,000, which constituted 60% of the proceeds from the sale of copied “Dictionary of contemporary Polish”. The high amount of penalty was justified by the fact that the publisher had copied as much as 60% of the dictionary of Polskie Wydawnictwo Naukowe (PWN).

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

Polish case law on copyright

December 9th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

A more detailed discussion about each judgment may be found under the link provided with the case file. All judgments are presented in the chronological order.

- The judgment of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 27 October 2011 case file VI ACa 461/11.

- The order of the Polish Supreme Court of 26 October 2011 case file III CZP 61/11.

- The judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland of 11 October 2011 case file P 18/09.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court case file V CSK 373/10.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 July 2011 case file I OSK 678/11.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 May 2011 case file II CSK 527/10.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gdańsk of 26 January 2011 case file II SA/Gd 529/10.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 January 2011 case file IV CSK 274/10.

- The order of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 December 2010 case file I OSK 1975/10.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Łódź of 20 December 2010 case file II SAB/Łd 53/10.

- The judgment of the District Court in Warsaw of 14 September 2010 case file I C 626/06. Not final yet.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 13 July 2010 case file III CZP 1/10.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 22 June 2010 case file IV CSK 359/09.

- The judgment of the Appellate Court in Lublin case file I ACa 206/10.

- The judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 16 November 2009, case file I CSK 160/09.

- The decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of 21 October 2009, case file P 31/07.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 27 February 2009, case file V CSK 337/08.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 June 2008, case file V CSK 22/08.

- The judgment of District Court in Tarnów of 20 December 2007 in re: Bochnia Independence Half-Marathon, case file I C 238/06.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 6 December 2007 case file III CZP 107/07.

- The judgment of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 17 October 2007 case file VI ACa 1259/06.

- The judgment of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 29 June 2007, case file VI ACa 210/07.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 January 2007 case file IV CSK 303/06.

- The judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 23 November 2004, case file I CK 232/04.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 December 2003, case file I CK 312/02.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 7 November 2003, case file V CK 391/02, published in OSN 2004, No 12, item 203.

- The judgment of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 14 March 2006, case file VI ACa 1012/05, published in the Jurisprudence of Appellate Courts (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądów Apelacyjnych) of 2007, No 12, item 36, p. 56.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 January 2006, case file I CK 281/05, published in the Supreme Court’s Bulletin of 2006, No 5, the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Civil Chamber (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Izba Cywilna) of 2006, No 11, item 186, p. 64, the “Wokanda” magazine of 2006, No 7-8, p. 17.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 13 January 2006, case file III CSK 40/05, published in the Supreme Court’s Bulletin of 2006, No 3, the “Wokanda” magazine of 2006, No 6, p. 6, the Review of Economic Legislation (in Polish: Przegląd Ustawodawstwa Gospodarczego) of 2006, No 7, p. 32.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 15 November 2002 case file II CKN 1289/00, published in the Supreme Court’s Bulletin of 2003, No 6, p. 7, the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Civil Chamber (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Izba Cywilna) of 2004, No 3, item 44, p. 66.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 26 September 2001, case file IV CKN 458/00, published in the electronic database Legalis.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 30 June 1999, case file I SA/Lu 408/98, unpublished.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 June 1998, case file I PKN 196/98, published in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Administrative, Labour and Social Insurance (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Izba Administracyjna, Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) of 1999, No 14, item 454.

- The judgment of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 5 July 1995, case file I ACr 453/95, unpublished.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 October 2005, case file FSK 2253/04, published in electronic database LEX, under the no. 173097.

- The judgment of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 2 October 1996, case file I ACa 2/96.

- The judgment of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 12 December 1995, case file I ACr 590/95, published in OSA 1997, No 3, item 16, at page 32.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 February 1970, case file I CR 666/69, published in OSP 1972, No. 2, item 30.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court of 8 November 1932, case file II. 1K. 1092/32, published in Zb. Orz. 1933/I item 7.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright“.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 274/09

December 3rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In a decision of 20 June 2008, the Polish Patent Office (PPO) invalidated the right of protection for “Logos Travel Mark Śliwka” R-169277 trade mark owned by LOGOS TRAVEL MAREK ŚLIWKA SPÓŁKA JAWNA Magdalena Śliwka, Marek Śliwka. A request for invalidation of the right of protection was filed by Biuro Turystyki Związku Nauczycielstwa Polskiego LOGOSTOUR Sp. z o.o. from Warszawa – the holder of “LogosTour LT” R-74232 trade mark that was registered with priority from 15 July 1991. LOGOSTOUR company claimed that Mr Marek Śliwka cooperated with it since 1994 as a local representative and under a contract, which came into force on 1 January 1995 and the additional agreement of 9 April 2002 he was allowed to use the “LogosTour LT” trade mark. The PPO found that “Logos Travel Mark Śliwka” was applied in bad faith. Mr Śliwka filed a complaint to the Voivodeiship Administrative Court in Warsaw (VAC) arguing that there was no bad faith on his side and there is no likelihood of confusion with regard to disputed trade marks.

The VAC in a judgment of 23 June 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 274/09, ruled that the application for the right of protection for a trade mark is made in bad faith, despite the knowledge or ignorance, resulting from an absence of diligence, about the existence of another’s right or interest that is worth of protection, which can be threatened, and with the intention of harming these interests. The overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion as it concerns the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression, taking into account, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Advertising law, reclaim the windows

December 1st, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 27 November 2009, Cezary Grabarczyk, the Polish Minister of Infrastructure signed the amendment to the Regulation on technical conditions of use of residential buildings, (in Polish: Rozporządzenie zmieniające rozporzadzenie w sprawie warunków technicznych użytkowania budynków mieszkalnych) of 27 November 2009, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 1999 No. 74, item. 836. The provisions of this amendments govern the possibility of installing big media advertising boards and vinyl’s mesh on which different advertisements are displayed and other devices not related to the use of housing in the multi-family residential buildings.

A multi-family residential building should be used in such a way that its rooms have no restrictions to daytime lighting. The provisions allow only for the installation of equipment and advertising space on the walls without windows, the windows of the staircases or commercial premises. However, the prohibition does not apply in the case of construction works on the building’s facade. The amendments will eliminate the negative impact that big media advertisings placed one housing buildings have on their occupants.

The Regulation enters into force after 14 days from the date of promulgation. All kind of advertising devices and media and other devices not related to the use of the building or apartment that were installed on residential flats before the entry into force of the aforementioned provisions will stay, but not longer than 18 months from the date of entry into force.

Categories: advertising law | Polish law.