Intellectual Property Law Internet Law IT Law Computer Law

There is an ongoing discussion at Piotr Waglowski’s website within the post titled “GIODO: first name, surname, photo, school, class and graduation year - are not personal data…” regarding recent decision of the Inspector General for the Protection of Personal Data (GIODO) of

September 3, (the date illegible on the scan I own), with a signature (again illegible) DOLiS/DEC 515/08/22857

However, I would like to write about deleting parties’ personal data from judgments decided during administrative proceedings. Just for example, see judgment of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court of 20 November 2007, act signature II GSK 138/07 (in Polish language).

The Supreme Administrative Court composed of the President: Judge Jan Kacprzak, after hearings of 20 November 2007, during non public session, in the Chamber of Commerce, on the motion of P. P. L. “K.” J. K. S. j. from L. regarding the separate division of a cassation complaint brought by R. B. G. with headquaters in F. an S., A. against the judgement of the District Administrative Court in W. of 7 September 2006, act signature VI SA/Wa 557/06 on the complaints of P. P. L. “K.” J. K. S. j. and R. B. G. with headquaters in F. an S., regarding the decision of the Polish Patent Office of November [...] 2005, No [...] on the invalidation proceedings of the right of protection of a trade mark, decides: to reject the motion.

So far so good and completely anonymously right? And I know… this text is badly translated and very complicated for non-Polish speaking readers and lawyers. Anyway, to have the story linked somehow I suggest you to visit the website of the Polish Patent Office. First, go under the “Press” link, where PPO, in accordance with a statutory license (or not), in the context of the current publications on industrial property law issues appearing in newspapers and web portals has made available neat news compilation of 12 September 2008, PDF file, which reads:

GAZETA PRAWNA, 12.09.2008, p. 9
“Even the renowned trade mark may be invalidated” (more…); author Joanna Barańska.
The reputation of the trade mark is irrelevant to the invalidation proceedings - a case of invalidation proceedings of the international trade mark registration of Red Bull sign in class 30 - for ice cream, confectionery products, etc. (act signature II, GSK 138/07).

I added the link to Gazeta Prawna’s article for the convenience of my respectable readers. With regard to personal data I recommend you to check the trademark database of Polish Patent Office and to perform a search with the fololowing criteria used in the advanced search options (TLP ZawWyr ‘ “Red” and “bull”‘) AND (NIC ZawWyr’30′).

Applicant/owner: Red Bull GmbH, Fuschl am See, AT
Plenipotentiary: Drzewiecki, Tomaszek & Wspólnicy Spółka Jawna Jarosz Wojciech, Warszawa, PL

Sex on the beach tourist’s set Souvenir from Packet includes 50 g of sand from the Batlic beach and a gift from the company Open only in case of emergency.

I recommend you to read a post available at www.logodesignlove.com website.

There is a story of some logo “borrowing” described at www.ecogeek.org website. Paweł Tkaczyk posted a short note about a similar situation in Poland. If someone of you knows about any of such “borrowings” or “similarities” then I’d be happy to read about it. Trust me, I’m not going to sue anyone I just need it for, let’s say “scientific” purposes. :)

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., No 04 Civ. 4607 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y July 14, 2008). Tiffany’s motion was rejected. There will be an appeal no dubt. Eric Goldman published some comments and Marty Schwimmer has added judgment’s text to Scribd.

According to the recent judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 30 June 2008, act signature I KZP 8/08, PDF file, in Polish language, buying counterfeited goods is not fencing. For more information and commentary please refer to Class46 website.

I did a post at class46.blogspot.com website.

The new decision will allow companies to register their brands as generic top-level domain names (TLDs). For instance, Microsoft could apply to have a TLD such as ‘.msn’, Apple could apply for ‘.mac’, and Google for ‘.goog’

You’ve probably noticed that I do not post so often lately. That’s because I’m involved in different projects. I was also invited to join the Editorial Board (Copyright, Related Rights and Designs (including sui generis database right)) of Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice which is published by Oxford University Press. But I promise, I will write and post some information here.

Nice action. Check www.snideuk.org website.

SnideUK is a British business with a turnover of over GBP10 billion per year. You might not have heard of us before, you probably do not recognise our logo; there’s a reason for that!

We are a company that does not feel the need to draw attention to ourselves. We do not advertise. We do not plaster our branding all over the place. We just get on with doing our business.

Our core business is of producing and selling a wide range of poor quality and dangerous products, and we are proud to say we excel in this field taking a particular note to pay no attention whatsoever to hazards, risks and consumer rights.

SnideUK is a subsidiary of SnideInc and is part of the Global Counterfeiting Network (GCN) an informal confederation of like-minded organisations encouraging trade in ripped-off tat and sharing best practice in keeping out our products and personnel out of the hands of local, national and international law enforcement agencies.

Check two Polish webpages www.yeslogo.pl and www.logo.wp.pl and compare them with www.logoyes.com website.

Trade mark registration in Poland - 2196,00 PLN Brutto.

I reccomend you to check this graphic table below with a specification of services. One of such services include “examination of patent’s clarity of a trade mark” whatever it means.

Math formulas to make a logotype are available at www.logologos.blogspot.com website.

Art and Ads. Funny remixes available at www.worth1000.com website.

I browsed through specific or peculiar artworks of Rob Nance that are available at his website - www.artforrobots.com. I started to think more when I saw “Poseable Paper Pope”. Parody. Bad taste? De gustibus non disputandum est. Publicity right? It is quite relaxing situation for Mr Nance that Vatican does not sue so eagerly as it usually happens in the US. Just check such case as White v. Samsung, 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992). Ms Vanna White (I have to add that Magda Masny was her counterpart in Poland) has sued Samsung for using her “image” in Samsung’s ads. I really really recommend you to read this judgment. Below, on the left, you’ll find a black and white image of Ms White and on the right, her “likeness” that was used in Samsung advertising campaign.

Judge Alex Kozinski wrote opinion for Vanna White v. Samsung, 989 F.2d 1512, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1362, 21 Media L. Rep. 1330 (9th Cir. 1993), which was the petition for rehearing in the above mentioned case. You may already know that I like his style and I often cite his profound deliberations as I did it in the post titled “Oh, those Internet’s contracts“.

Today, I read an old article available at www.nytimes.com website (January 2007) about Levi’s actions connected with protection of a trade mark consisting of a design for pant’s pockets and I immediately recalled myself a judgment of the Distric Administratice Court in Warsaw of 22 February 2006. Act signature VI SA/Wa 805/05.

Contrasted trade marks that are meant as signs for clothes (among other things for pants) resemble to each other to the extent that it may lead into the confusion of a consumer as regard to origin of goods in the regular course of trade (as defined in the article 9 sec. 1 pt 1 and 2 of the Act of 31 January 1985 on Trademarks (Dziennik Ustaw No 5, pos. 17 with later changes) if both marks include horizontal seams crossing down the pocket which in its shapes reasemble seagull’s (eagle) wings and where such element is simultaneously predominant for both signs.

Johnson & Johnson and the Red Cross had amicably shared use of the distinctive symbol since 1895 but in 2004 ARC started to license the symbol to other companies for use in commerce. J&J was annoyed and the judgment in Johnson & Johnson v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39113 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2008) is the outcome.

I do not want to brag about myself but I wrote once in the post titled “The Law” that I want to write some article. You may wonder what has happened after almost two years since I’ve issued such statement?

Legal context: This article deals with most important legal questions regarding graffiti. It seeks to identify issues that may arise in copyright and trade mark law. The analysis is based on selected international, Polish, UK, US and European Union regulations.

Key points and practical significance: The social phenomenon known as graffiti is not legally indifferent. However, there are few articles dealing with those issues relevant in IP law. The author presents a short overview of the contemporary graffiti movement. He then presents important IP legal problems that may arise as regards to graffiti activity and briefly analyzes those issues relevant to domestic and international legal regimes.

Key Words: Most graffiti is illegal, but that does not mean that interesting IP questions do not arise in relation to this cultural phenomenon. Following a short overview of the contemporary graffiti movement, the author article seeks to analyse some of the basic questions that arise concerning copyright protection and industrial property law. The author calls for a more focused analysis in the future of this controversial problem.

T. Rychlicki, Legal questions about illegal art, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2008 3(6):393-401; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpn058.