Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: copyright misuse

Consumer protection, case VI ACa 1179/11

February 20th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection in its decision of 29 August 2008 case DOK – 6/2008 ruled that two Polish collecting societies, the Association of Writers and Composers (Stowarzyszenie Autorów – ZAiKS) and the Polish Filmmakers Association (Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich – SFP), were involved in actions deemed as infringement of competition on the relevant market. This decision concerned the agreement on uniform rates of copyright remuneration that were collected from commercial users for the sale of audiovisual works on media intended for private use. The request to initiate antimonopoly proceedings was filed by the Polish Press Publishers Association (Izba Wydawców Prasy – IWP) based on the provisions of the Polish Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers – APCC – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów) of 16 February 2007 published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 50, item 331, with subsequent amendments.

IWP claimed that ZAiKS and SFP are competing entities because they are active on management and collecting in the same fields of exploitation of copyrighted works, and authors, creators and copyright owners can freely choose the collecting society they want to be represented by.

The President of the OCCP found that ZAiKS and SFP decided that the minimum remuneration rates for one copy of the media will be for a movie on DVD – 2 PLN, for a movie on VCD and VHS- 1,1 PLN, for a cartoon movie on DVD – 1.6 PLN, and for a cartoon movie on VCDs and VHS – 0,8 PLN. Minimum rates for a copy of audiovisual work on the media that are sold together with other products, including, in particular newspapers and magazines were set on an even lower level. For instance for a DVD that was put on the market before 1 July 2004 – 1 PLN, and from 1 July 2004, 0.60 PLN, There were also introduced discounts from 5% to 40% depending on the number of copies (from 100.000 to above 700.000 copies).

Members of IWP, who are press publishers, are also contractors of ZAiKS and SFP. The Press publishers add copies of DVD movies to their newspapers and magazines, as the so-called inserts. They are required under the provisions of Polish copyright law to pay appropriate remuneration for the reproduction of the audiovisual work on the copy for individual use. The remuneration fee is paid by the press publishers only through the collecting society. IWP argued that the remuneration of the authors for use of audiovisual works should be individualized, and the conditions of agreement to use the work should be negotiated. The collecting societies should negotiate different rates for different movies. Such actions would prove the real concern for the interests of every member of each collecting society, because the authors of a better movie should earn more. The rates covered by the agreement between ZAiKS and SFP did not include possible revenues from the use of audiovisual works, nor the specifics of this use. Thus, according to the IWP, the agreement of ZAiKS and SFP on the application of uniform rates, deprived commercial users the possibility to negotiatie the rates, and significantly restricted competition.

ZAikS and SFP filed complaints against the decision of the President of the OCCP. The Polish Court of Competition and Consumer Protection in its judgment of 8 July 2011 case file XVII AmA 23/09 dismissed them. The Appeallate Court in Warsaw in its judgment case file VI ACa 1179/11 dismissed the appeal.

Consumer protection, case XVII Amc 113/11

December 29th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The provision of the Rules of the Municipal Public Library in Słupsk stated that the Library may allow for reproductions or digital reproductions of one publishing volume sheet, which is approx. 22 pages of A4 format, of any documents protected by copyright law that are in the collection of the Library. However, such rules are contrary to the provisions of Article 23 of 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 subsequent amendments.

Section 3
Lawful Use of Protected Works
Art. 23.-1. It shall be permissible, without the consent of the creator, to make use free of charge, of a work that has already been disclosed. However, this provision shall not authorize the construction of a building based on an architectural work or a work of urban architecture made by another person.
2. Personal use shall extend to use within a circle of persons who are personally related, in particular by blood or marriage, or who entertain social relations.

The Polish Court of Competition and Consumer Protection in its judgment of 9 December 2011 case file XVII AmC 113/11 held that such rule is prohibited and deemed as a wrongful contractual provision, as defined in the Article 385¹ § 1 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with subsequent amendments.

Article 385¹. § 1. Provisions of a contract concluded with a consumer, which have not been individually agreed with him, shall not be binding thereupon, if his rights and duties have been stipulated in conflict with public decency and in flagrant violation of his interest (wrongful contractual provisions). This shall not relate to the provisions which specify basic performances of the parties, including the price and remuneration if determined explicitly.
§ 2. Where the provision referred to in paragraph 1 is not binding upon the consumer, the parties shall be bound by the remaining provisions of the contract.
§ 3. The provisions not agreed individually shall be such provisions of the contract over which the consumer had no actual influence. It shall concern, in particular, the provisions of the contract taken over from the model form of contract offered to a consumer by a contracting party.
§ 4. The burden of evidence to prove that the provision has been agreed individually shall be borne by the party who claims so.

The Court held that the Library cannot decide on limits of copying of any of the library collections. Copying books without limitation of the maximum number of pages is legally permissible. The provisions of the ARNR do not indicate any limits. Such a judgment come as no surprise, because every person who is in possession of any reprographic devices and conducts economic activities within the scope of reproduction of works for the personal use of third parties, is according to the provisons of article 20¹ of the ARNR obliged to pay, through a Collection Society, fees at up to 3% of proceeds generated from such activities, to authors and publishers, unless the reproduction is done on the basis of a contract signed with a rightholder. Such fees are paid to authors and publishers in equal parts.

Access to public information, case V Ca 2388/10

November 9th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Professor Janusz S. Bień requested the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences to disclose public information on the license agreement, concerning the online version of the Dictionary of the Polish language of the sixteenth century. The request was filed under the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with subsequent amendments. Mr Bień did not receive the requested information, but also was not denied this information in the form of an administrative decision. As a result, prof. Bień brought an action for failure to act. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, in its judgment of 18 June, 2009 case file II SAB/Wa 14/09 ordered the Director of the Institute of Literary Research to examine the request.

On 13 August 2009, the Institute of Literary Research refused to provide requested public information because of the secret of the entrepreneur. The basis for refusal was Article 5(2) of the API.

Article 5. 1. The right to public information is subject to limitation to the extent and on the principles defined in the provisions on the protection of confidential information and on the protection of other secrets being statutorily protected.
2. The right to public information is subject to limitation in relation to privacy of a natural person or the secret of an entrepreneur. The limitation does not relate to the information on persons performing public functions, being connected with performing these functions, including the conditions of entrusting and performing these functions and in the event when a natural person or entrepreneur resigns from the right to which he was entitled to.

The entity, which was denied the access to the public information in respect to its exclusion of its openness when quoting the protection of personal data, the right to privacy and the secret other than state, official, treasury or statistical secret, is entitled to put an action to the court for making such information available. Professor decided to bring an action.

The Regional Court for Warszawa Śródmieście I Civil Division in its judgment of 12 March 2010 case file I C 1305/09, dismissed the action because the prof. Bien has not demonstrated that he is legally entitled to obtain a photocopy of the disputed agreement. The Court arbitrarily assumed that as a basis for disclose of a photocopy of the disputed agreement should be used Article 222 § 1 of the Civil Code governing the claim of the owner of a thing against the person who actually possess it (rei vindicatio).

Article 222. § 1. The owner may demand of a person who has actual control of a thing to release that thing to him unless that person has the right, effective with respect to the owner, to control the thing.
§ 2. The owner shall have the right to claim restitution of his lawful position and abstention from infringements of law, against a person who infringes his ownership otherwise than by depriving the owner of the actual control of a thing.

Professor Bień appealed. The District Court in Warsaw, V Civil Division, in its judgment of 9 November 2010 case file V Ca 2388/10, annulled the contested judgment and ordered Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences to provide photocopies of the agreement.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 746/09

August 10th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story decribed in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2284/08” that concerned the trade mark HERITAGE FILMS. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 August 2010 case file II GSK 746/09 dismissed the cassation complaint brought by Zygmunt Piotrowski. The SAC held inter alia that the provisions of the TMA or the IPL do not provide in the course of the litigation proceedings lead by the Polish Patent Office, for the possibility to control the legality of the administrative proceedings that concerned the registration of a given trade mark. The legality of a decision granting the right of protection should be challenged in different proceedings.

Heritage

The Court noted that Mr Piotrowski confused the concepts of “invalidation of the registration right” or “invalidation of right of protection for a trade mark” with the annulment of the decision on the granting of the right. There are different grounds for such decisions and other procedures on their issuance, but in case of the breach of the provisions listed in Article 29 of the Trade Marks Act, those conditions may overlap, and only in this case they might be raised in the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the invaliditon of the protection right, although identical in its consequences, cannot be identified with the institution of the annulment of the decision on the granting of the right of protection.

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

April 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 1990, Zygmunt Piotrowski who is a well-known Polish graphic artist, created the logotype that depicted the porch with columns and attic finial of the Penderecki’s house in Lusłwice 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, case no. Sp. 3/97 invalidated the word-figurative trade mark Heritage 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 the word HERITAGE 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 the trade mark HERITAGE R-87806. One more time Mr Piotrowski filed a complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC in its judgment of 12 March 2003 case file 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 the trade mark Heritage Films R-151966. Zygmunt Piotrowski has requested the invalidation proceedings argued that the trade mark Heritage Films infringes on his personal and economic rights afforded by the copyright law. 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.

Unfair commercial practices, case DOK-6/2008

September 4th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In December 2005, the OCCP instituted antitrust proceedings against ZAiKS and the Polish Filmmakers Association (SFP), suspecting that – in order to maximise their profits – these organisations had made an agreement and fixed uniform charges for using audiovisual works and refused to negotiate their rates.

Penalties for a total of more than $ 1.2 million Polish złoty were imposed by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) on The Association of Authors (ZAiKS) and the Polish Filmmakers Association (APF) because of their agreement “to eliminate competition between them”.

UOKiK has found that since 2003, ZAiKS and SFP, seeking to guarantee itself the highest profits, have operated under the unlawful antitrust agreement. SFP and ZAiKS concluded an agreement which established a uniform, rigid rates for the use of audiovisual works (such as DVD movies) and refused to negotiate them – announced Malgorzata Krasnodębska-Tomkiel (the President of the UOKiK) at a press conference in Warsaw.

The decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of 29 August 2008, case file DOK-6/2008 The official press release is available at uokik.gov.pl website, in Polish language.