Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Internet domains law

Internet domains, case IV CSK 191/13

April 10th, 2014, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company PASTA i BASTA Sp. z o.o. from Warszawa, the owner of the word-figurative trade mark pasta i basta 100 sposobów na makaron cafè R-212390 sued Restaurators Podlaszewscy Spółka Jawna from Toruń. PASTA i BASTA requested the court to prohibit Restaurators Podlaszewscy the use of restaurant name Pasta & Basta and to refrain from the use of Internet domain name pastaandbasta.com and to oblige the defendant to withdraw from the Polish Patent Office an application for the word-figurative trade mark pasta&basta Z-368187 and the withdrawal of the application for a Community trade mark and the award of 60.000 PLN.

The District Court dismissed the complaint and PASTA i BASTA decided to appeal. The Appeallate Court ordered Restaurators Podlaszewscy to cease the use of the name of the restaurant and refrain from using the website and ordered the defendant to pay 10.000 PLN. Restaurators Podlaszewscy filed a cassation complaint.

Z-368187

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 11 December 2013 case file IV CSK 191/13 held that if the competitor uses Internet domain name identical or similar to a registered trade mark, there may be trade mark infringement if such domain use may cause the likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the goods or services, or result in violation of the advertising function of the trade mark.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 202/12

September 11th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Apple, Inc. filed the request for invalidation of the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark A.PL registered for goods and services in Class 9, 35 and 42 and owned by the Polish company Internet S.A. from Warszawa. The Polish company also provides an online grocery store under the domain name a.pl. The main arguments presented by the U.S. company were based on confusing similarity between the sign A.PL and national and Community trade marks that are owned by Apple. Arguments based on the unfair use of the reputation were also raised.

R-222253

The Adjudicative Board held the first hearing on 29 august 2012 case no. Sp. 202/12. However, due to the large volume of evidence supplied by Apple, the hearing was adjourned.

Internet domains, case III CSK 120/11

May 15th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

MEDianus sp. z o.o. and Medianus Agencja Reklamowa sp. z o.o. are seated in the same city, at a location nearby. The first one uses medianus.net domain name and the second medianus.pl. The first company was entered in the Register of Business Entities in the National Court Register (KRS) as MEDianus in June 2003 r. The second one was entered in 2009. MEDianus sp. z o.o. filed a complaint, to prohibit the other company to use the name “medianus” in the company name and as a domain name, based on the provisions of Article 3 and 5 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments. MEDianus sp. z o.o. argued the the use of the same company name caused many confusions with delivery of post or invoices.

R-200943

The District Court dismissed all claims. However, the Appellate Court in Kraków agreed with MEDianus sp. z o.o. appeal and ordered Medianus Agencja Reklamowa to change its company name and website and to publish an apology in two national newspapers.

Z-360648

The Polish Supreme Court in its judgment of 9 December 2011 case file III CSK 120/11 dismissed the complaint filed by Medianus Agencja Reklamowa. The Court held that in order to apply the provisions of Article 5 of the CUC, both companies have to be in competitive relationship. This situation happens when there is a risk of confusion with regard to the identity of entrepreneurs. The Court also confirmed that the so-called cybersquatting is an unnamed delict (tort) under the Polish law on combating unfair competition.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Collective interests of consumers, case III SK 44/10

May 9th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

Terms of Service of Domeny.pl website contained a clause that allowed Domeny.pl to introduce changes in TOS and it also included a statement that the changes take effect “from the time a new version is available on the website”. The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection decided that this provision violates the collective interests of consumers as they should be always informed about amendments to the terms. Otherwise they would have to constantly check to see if TOS has not been modified. The President ordered the removal of the questioned terms of service. Domeny.pl filed a complaint against this decision. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 12 April 2011 case file III SK 44/10 dismissed the complaint.

Internet domains, case I ACa 1334/07

June 17th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The District Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 August 2007, case file XVI GC 756/06 dismissed the complaint filed by “Euro–net” sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the Court of Conciliation for Internet Domains at the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications of 23 March 2006 case file 22/05/PA in which the Court of Conciliation dismissed the “Euro-net” complaint against Rafał Falęcki in case of infringement of trade mark rights and unfair competition delict/tort concerning eurortv.com.pl domain name.

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 April 2008 case file I ACa 1334/07 dismissed the appeal, although it also found that some of the allegations included in the complaint proved to be accurate. The Court of Conciliation violated the adversarial rule because it has conducted an investigation of evidence ex officio, by looking on web pages and performing a search for disputed words “euro” and “rtv” in Google. The Court has not made any survey protocol or notes. This was made personally by the arbitrator without a request of both parties, however, the parties have not raised any comment to that evidence. The Court of Conciliation should issue the provision of evidence, indicating the date and place to carry out, so the parties could participate in this investigation. However, the appeal did not contain any allegations as to the veracity of the abovementioned evidence. The court may conduct investigation of evidence ex officio and on its own initiative but it should do it only in situations of an exceptional nature.

The Appellate Court did not agree with the “Euro-net” that the circumstances in which the investigation of evidence was conducted required special knowledge, and therefore should be subject to expert opinion. The Court of Conciliation made only a visual overview of the web pages of the plaintiff and the defendant, to which it was not necessary to posses special knowledge in the field of IT. The Appellate Court held that since the issue of the case was the infringement of “Euro-net” rights of protection for trade marks that was allegedly made by Rafał Falęcki in the Internet, therefore the inspection of his websites was sufficient way to determine whether and how the defendant used plaintiff’s trademarks. The expertise is not needed for such action, because a regular Internet user usually does not have such knowledge. It was a regular Internet user who could be mislead, in particular by a risk of associating the domain name with a registered trade marks, as defined in Article 296(2)(ii) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), published in 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 subsequent amendments.

2. Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(ii) a trademark identical or similar to a trademark registered in respect of identical or similar goods, if a likelihood of misleading the public, including in particular a risk of associating the trademark with a registered trademark, exists;

However, there were no doubts for the Court that provisions of article 153 of the IPL mean that one cannot infringe the protection rights for a trade mark in the Internet.

Article 153
1. The right of protection shall confer the exclusive right to use the trademark for profit or for professional purposes throughout the territory of the Republic of Poland.
2. The term of the right of protection shall be 10 years counted from the date of filing of a trademark application with the Patent Office.
3. The term of protection may, at the request of the right holder, be extended for subsequent ten-year periods in respect of all or of a part of the goods.
4. The request referred to in paragraph (3) shall be submitted before the expiration of a running protection period, however not earlier than one year before the expiration thereof. The request shall be submitted together with the payment of a due protection fee.
5. The request referred to in paragraph (3) may also be submitted, against payment of an additional fee, within six months after the expiration of a protection period. The said time limit shall be non-restorable.
6. The Patent Office shall make a decision on refusal to extend the term of protection for a trademark, where the request has been submitted after the expiration of the time limit referred to in paragraph (5) or the due fees referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) have not been paid.

According to the Court, one cannot use signs (or its elements) or similar trade marks, in its Internet domain names, if its business deals with selling the same group of products. There was no question that the mentioned above rule belongs to the fundamental socio-economic principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland. However, in this case, such conditions were not met, bacuse all signs constituting “Euro-net” trade marks and used by Rafał Falęcki lack distinctive character, there was no risk of confusion, and there existed the exclusion of protection of signs as set out in article 156(1)(ii) of the IPL.

1. The right of protection shall not entitle the right holder to prohibit third parties from using, in the course of trade:
(ii) indications concerning, in particular, the features and characteristics of goods, the kind, quantity, quality, intended purpose, origin, the time of production or of expiration of usability period,

There is one thing I wanted to add. I asked the Appellate Court in Warsaw to send me the judgment via e-mail. My request was based on the Polish Act on access to public information. On 14 June 2010 I received an e-mail from the Court.

W związku z wnioskiem z dnia 11 czerwca 2010 r. o udostępnienie informacji publicznej uprzejmie informuję, że opłata za udostępnienie treści wyroku Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 16 kwietnia 2008 r. w sprawie o sygn. akt I ACa 1334/07 wraz z uzasadnieniem – zgodnie z Zarządzeniem Nr 130/09 Prezesa Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 31 lipca 2009 r. – wynosi 8 zł (1 zł za stronę) – w wersji elektronicznej. Opłatę można uiścić w kasie Sądu, znakami sądowymi lub przelewem bankowym na konto Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie nr 93 1010 1010 0404 1322 3100 0000 z dopiskiem ” informacja publiczna Adm. 0137-119/10″.

I was informed that according to the Decree No 130/09 of the President of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 31 July 2009, the fee for access to the judgment – is 8 PLN (1 PLN per page) – in the electronic version. I had no time to argue so I decided to pay. However, as you may remember from my post entitled “E-access to public information, case I C 19/10“, price-lists and flat-rate charges for making the public information available, may violate the provisions of the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Internet domains, case C-569/08

June 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justic of European Union in its judgment of 3 June 2010, case C‑569/08, Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v. Richard Schlicht, ruled on bad faith registration of EU domain names.

1. Article 21(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration must be interpreted as meaning that bad faith can be established by circumstances other than those listed in Article 21(3)(a) to (e) of that regulation.

2. In order to assess whether there is conduct in bad faith within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation No 874/2004, read in conjunction with Article 21(3) thereof, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case and, in particular, the conditions under which registration of the trade mark was obtained and those under which the .eu top level domain name was registered.

With regard to the conditions under which registration of the trade mark was obtained, the national court must take into consideration, in particular:

– the intention not to use the trade mark in the market for which protection was sought;

– the presentation of the trade mark;

– the fact of having registered a large number of other trade marks corresponding to generic terms; and

– the fact of having registered the trade mark shortly before the beginning of phased registration of .eu top level domain names.

With regard to the conditions under which the .eu top level domain name was registered, the national court must take into consideration, in particular:

– the abusive use of special characters or punctuation marks, within the meaning of Article 11 of Regulation No 874/2004, for the purposes of applying the transcription rules laid down in that article;

– registration during the first part of the phased registration provided for in that regulation on the basis of a mark acquired in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings; and

– the fact of having applied for registration of a large number of domain names corresponding to generic terms.

Internet domains, case I C 2179/09

April 26th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 2 March 2010, the District Court in Białystok I Civil Division issued in absentia judgment case file I C 2179/09, in which it ordered the defendant, a natural person known as “domain name investor” to discontinue the use of tygodnikpowszechny.pl domain name. The court ordered the defendant to publish a full-page paid ad in a weekly magazine, and two ads in two nationwide newspapers (Gazeta Wyborcza and Rzeczpospolita), with an apology defined by the Court. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the amount of 25000 PLN as compensation for infringement of personal rights of Tygodnik Powszechny sp. z o.o. company, and the amount of 15000 PLN as damages for infringement of personal rights of Father Adam Boniecki, the editor of Tygodnik Powszechny. These amounts should be transferred to Fundacji Polska Akcja Humanitarna (the Fundation Polish Humanitarian Action). The court ruled the judgment to be immediately enforceable. The judgment is final.

The court held that the use of Internet domain name may constitute a violation of personal rights taking into account the content which is visible at a website available under a given domain name. The questioned domain name was parked and directed to a website with advertising links. Such content, including texts, which were the visualization of sponsored links, constituted in Court’s opinion an infringement of personal rights.

This judgment is very important for Polish and foreign companies which became the target of cybersquatting if we consider that the Polish case law on personal interests, for instance the Appellate Court in Poznań in a judgment of 22 October 1991, case file I ACr 400/90, already established the rule that the firm under which the company conducts its business, has the same meaning in legal relations, as the name of an individual person.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Internet domains, case I ACz 232/10

February 14th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

As polite fans would probably say, the condition of Polish football is at least “debatable”, and others might use more crude words. The corruption and inefficient management of the Polish national football leagues are the tip of the Iceberg. This situation causes frustration of many people who try to blame the Polish Football Association (PZPN) for all their miseries. Some of these people decided to take matters into their own hands. They formed the Association of Defenders and Supporters of the Polish Football. They registered koniecpzpn.pl (end of Polish Football Association) as an Internet domain name and started to host a website with critical publications on PZPN under that domain. One didn’t need to wait too long before lawyers representing the Polish Football Association entered “the game”. New players acting on behalf of the Polish Football Association requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction in order to secure the case for the future action for trade mark protection and for the protection of personal rights.

The District Court in Lódż, I Civil Division, in its order of 14 January 2010, case file I Co 203/09 granted the injunction and ordered the prohibition of placing at koniecpzpn.pl website the following trade marks owned by PZPN: R-142616, R-170024, R-188961 and R-188962, the Court also ordered a block on the access to the content of the website available under www.koniecpzpn.pl domain name. The Court set the PZPN a two-week deadline for lodging the petition instituting proceedings for trade mark protection and the protection of personal rights under the pain of withdrawing the injunction in case no lawsuit was filed by that date.

The Appellate Court in Łódź in its decision of 24 March 2010 case file I ACz 232/10 annulled the injunction. The Court held that PZPN did not exactly specified which claims it intends to enforce. The Court ruled that all claims should be precisely specified in the request because the lack of precise claims make impossible to verify whether conditions for the injunction are met, i.e. whether the claim is reliable and the applicant has legal interest (locus standi) in enforcing it. The Court also noted that the injunction would be unduly restrictive and burdensome beyond measure. According to the Court the blocking of a website could be considered as inadmissible preventive censorship.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 71/07

February 12th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

A lawyer representing one Polish entrepreneur, and as you already know personal data of the parties are removed from Polish courts’ judgments, requested the General Inspector for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) to issue an order to Home.pl company from Szczecin, to disclose personal data such as name, surname, the firm, address, office’s seat, phone number and e-mail address of a person, which had only published its caller id, and who registered a certain Internet domain name. The lawyer stated that his client is claiming the right to use the questioned domain name and the requested information is necessary for the initation of the arbitration proceedings before the Court of Conciliation at the the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications.

Home.pl refused to provide the abovementioned personal data, arguing that the parties of the legal relationship arising from the fact of the registration and maintenance of Internet domain names are the Research and Academic Computer Network (in Polish: Naukowa i Akademicka Sieć Komputerowa) – the national registry of the .pl domain, and the domain name subscriber.

The GIODO performed an investigation based on the administrative proceedings regulations. The GIODO did an inspection of the Company’s headquarters and found that Home.pl maintains a separate collection of data of subscribers who have registered their domain names in NASK through Home.pl services. NASK is the national domain name registrar, while Home.pl arranges for the registration and maintenance of Internet domain names. Home.pl represents an applicant for the domain name registration before NASK. A natural or legal person and Home.pl have to establish a legal relationship based on a registration contract in order to register the domain name in NASK. The legal relationship is based on registering and maintaining of the internet domain name. The GIODO found that in this case, the contested domain name was registered by a natural person.

In September 2006, the General Inspector for Personal Data Protection issued an administrative decision which ordered Home.pl to disclose personal data of the individual who registered the Internet domain name in question, the name, surname, address, phone number and e-mail address. Home.pl requested for a retrial of the case. The GIODO upheld the decision and Home.pl filed a complaint against it.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 Novmeber 2007 case file II SA/Wa 71/07 ruled that the complaint was based on Article 29(2) in connection with Article 22 of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with subsequent amendments.

Article 29
1. In case of providing the access to the data for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, the controller shall disclose the data kept in the data filing system to persons or subjects authorised by the law.
2. Personal data, exclusive of data referred to in Article 27 paragraph 1, may also be disclosed, for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, to persons and subjects other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above, provided that such persons or subjects present reliably their reasons for being granted the access to the data and that granting such access will not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subjects.
3. Personal data are disclosed at written and justified requests, unless the provisions of another law state otherwise. Such requests should include information allowing for identification of the requested personal data within the filing system and indicating their scope and purpose.
4. Disclosed personal data shall be used only pursuant to the purpose for which they have been disclosed.
(…)
Article 22
The proceedings with respect to the matters regulated by this Act shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure, unless other provisions of the law state otherwise.

According to the VAC, the provisions of Article 29(1) and (2) allow third parties to request the disclosure of personal data for purposes other than inclusion in the collection. It should be noted that these provisions being in force until 1 May 2004, gave no grounds to demand the disclosure if the controller was the private sector. This situation changed after the amendment of 22 January 2004. The Court noted that the request for disclosure of personal data may be filed by any person i.e. natural person, any organizational unit, both public and private. It is important that the possesion of personal data is necessary to achieve intended goals, and the request for personal data is credible and reasonable. Such request does not require a collector to disclosure personal data because it must assess whether the conditions have been met to provide such data according to provisions of Article 29 of the PPD.

1. In case of providing the access to the data for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, the controller shall disclose the data kept in the data filing system to persons or subjects authorised by the law.
2. Personal data, exclusive of data referred to in Article 27 paragraph 1, may also be disclosed, for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, to persons and subjects other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above, provided that such persons or subjects present reliably their reasons for being granted the access to the data and that granting such access will not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subjects.
3. Personal data are disclosed at written and justified requests, unless the provisions of another law state otherwise. Such requests should include information allowing for identification of the requested personal data within the filing system and indicating their scope and purpose.
4. Disclosed personal data shall be used only pursuant to the purpose for which they have been disclosed.

However, the VAC stressed that fact that collector’s discretion cannot mean its arbitrariness. In the case of the unfounded refusal to provide personal data according Article 29 (2) of the PPD, the General Inspector for Personal Data Protection shall have the right – in accordance with Article 18(1) pt. 2 of the PPD – to require the disclosure of personal data.

1. In case of any breach of the provisions on personal data protection, the Inspector General ex officio or upon a motion of a person concerned, by means of an administrative decision, shall order to restore the proper legal state, and in particular:
(…)
2) to complete, update, correct, disclose, or not to disclose personal data,

Undoubtedly, the request for the disclosure of personal data must be credible and legitimate. Thus, if such request is do not precluded by provisions of article 27 of the PPD, the collector must disclose such data.

1. The processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, religious, party or trade-union membership, as well as the processing of data concerning health, genetic code, addictions or sex life and data relating to convictions, decisions on penalty, fines and other decisions issued in court or administrative proceedings shall be prohibited.
2. Processing of the data referred to in paragraph 1 above shall not constitute a breach of the Act where:
1) the data subject has given his/her written consent, unless the processing consists in erasure of personal data,
2) the specific provisions of other statute provide for the processing of such data without the data subject’s consent and provide for adequate safeguards,
3) processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another person where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving his/her consent until the establishing of a guardian or a curator,
4) processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the statutory objectives of churches and other religious unions, associations, foundations, and other non-profitseeking organisations or institutions with a political, scientific, religious, philosophical, or trade-union aim and provided that the processing relates solely to the members of those organisations or institutions or to the persons who have a regular contact with them in connection with their activity and subject to providing appropriate safeguards of the processed data,
5) processing relates to the data necessary to pursue a legal claim,
6) processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations of the controller with regard to employment of his/her employees and other persons, and the scope of processing is provided by the law,
7) processing is required for the purposes of preventive medicine, the provision of care or treatment, where the data are processed by a health professional subject involved in treatment, other health care services, or the management of health care services and subject to providing appropriate safeguards,
8) the processing relates to those data which were made publicly available by the data subject,
9) it is necessary to conduct scientific researches including preparations of a thesis required for graduating from university or receiving a degree; any results of scientific researches shall not be published in a way which allows identifying data subjects,
10) data processing is conducted by a party to exercise the rights and duties resulting from decisions issued in court or administrative proceedings.

The Court had to consider the question of whether the application met the conditions set in Article 29 of the PPD. The legal representative proved that, the disclosure of personal data of a person who registered the disputed domain because was necessary for the initation of the arbitration proceedings before the Court of Conciliation at the the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications. The Court noted that the arbitration proceedings are held in accordance with Article 1188 § 1 of the Civil Proceedings Code – CPC – (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 43, item 296, with subsequent amendments. The proceedings before the Court of Conciliation starts with the lodging of the statement of claim (the suit), which means that the suit should comply with the conditions laid down in Article 187 § 1 of the CPC. Under that provision, the statement of claim should meet the requirements of the pleading, and it also shall include: clearly defined demand in matters of property rights and the value of the claim, unless the case concerns the amount of money. The suit shall include all facts justifying the request and, if necessary, to justify the jurisdiction of the court. In accordance with Article 126 § 1 pt. 1 of the CPC, every pleading shall also contain, inter alia, the designation of the court to which it is addressed, the name or names of the parties, their legal representatives and/or agents. Therefore, the essential element of the claim for infringement of personal rights is to show the person against whom the request is addressed, i.e. the defendant in future proceedings for infringement of personal rights, and defendant’s address. The VAC found that the request in the Home.pl case was fully justified. The Court also confirmed that Home.pl is the controller within the meaning of Article 7(4) of the PPD, because according to the agreement with NASK, Home.pl decides on the purposes and means of the processing of personal data related to people who registered domain names. Thus, the party of the case was Home.pl, not NASK.

Internet domains, case I ACa 272/06

February 8th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Katowice in its judgment of 16 June 2006 case file I ACa 272/06 ruled that it is pointless to talk about the “ownership” of Internet domains, because the civil law sets the property rights in Article 140 of the Civil Code, which only refers to tangibles, and domains are not such things, and further, due to the closed list of property rights in intangibles (the so-called numerus clasus of IP rights – the principle that the system of estates allows only a limited number of property rights available in a legal system), there are no regulations in the Polish law, which suggests that the effect of registering Internet domain names is, to acquire by the subscriber, the right to use and dispose of the domain. The agreement between the subscriber and the Internet domain registrar is a contract to provide telecommunications services within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Polish Act of 16 July 2000 on Telecommunications Law – TLA – (in Polish: Prawo telekomunikacyjne), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 171, item 1800 with subsequent amendments. The subscriber may transfer his or her claims (contractual claims against the registrar) to another entity, if it comes with the assumption of debt from subscriber fees.

I realize that this differs significantly from the US law. Easpecially if you read Kremen v. Cohen, 335 F.3d 1035, (9th Cir. 2003).

The parties do not dispute that domain names are a kind of property. This proposition appears to be consistent with California’s broad definition of “property.” See Cal. Civ.Code §§ 654 & 655(property includes “all inanimate things which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery”). The parties disagree, however, whether a domain name like sex.com is the kind of intangible property that can support a claim for conversion. At issue is whether such intangible property constitutes a sufficiently definite right and whether such intangible property must also be merged into a document or other writing.

Same opinions were issued in Harrods, Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002), Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesars-Palace.Com, 112 F. Supp. 2d 502 (E.D. Va. 2000) or In re Larry Koenig & Assoc., 2004 WL 3244582 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2004). But there are also different judgments such as Dorer v. Arel, 60 F. Supp. 2d 558 (E.D. Va. 1999), Zurakov v. Register.com, Inc., 304 A.D.2d 176, 760 N.Y.S.2d 13 (1st Dep’t 2003), Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro International, Inc., 259 Va. 759, 529 S.E.2d 80 (2000) and the latest I know which is Palacio del Mar Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. McMahon, — Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2009 WL 1668294 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. June 16, 2009). The Court ruled that a domain name registration is not property, but merely supplies the intangible contractual right to use a unique domain name for a specified period of time. Does it sound familiar to you?

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Internet domains, case X GC 1245/03

October 6th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The District Court in Łódź, X Commercial Division in its judgment of 22 June 2004, case file X GC 1245/03 decided the first Polish domain name case in Microsoft versus Robert Rudecki. The judgment was issued in absentia. The case concerned microsoft.pl and microsoft.com.pl domain names.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Internet domains, case I ACz 364/08

October 1st, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Białystok in its order of 6 May 2008, case file I ACz 364/08 ruled that, the registration and use of the Internet domain name which is the same as someone else already existing domain, may be regarded as an act of unfair competition. The definition is provided in the Article 3(1) of the Polish 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 subsequent amendments.

Article 3
1. 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 court also noted that although the act of unfair competition takes place only when the arguing entrepreneurs can be regarded as competitors. However, there are not excluded situations where a website under a disputed domain name will be providing goods or services different from those associated with a given name on the non-virtual market. Also in such situation a person may request for the protection against violations of the rights to the domain name, especially when it is registered in order to block a domain by a competitor, if it identifies an inactive website or a webpage or a website which is not updated nor offering any goods. Registration of such domains leads to a substantial impediment to market access for other entrepreneurs, which is in violation of Article 15 of the CUC. Such actions, however, have also an economic overtone, and therefore they concern the economic rights. The Court held that a claim filed in order to establish that someone is entitled to Internet domain names, and that actions of such a person will not infringe on the right of protection for a trade mark, and are not deemed as acts of unfair competition, are claims ensuing from property rights

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Internet domains, case XVII AmC 170/05

October 20th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Register of Prohibited Clauses operated by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection contains contractual clauses found unlawful by a legally binding judgements. According to the latest judgment of the Polish Court of Competition and Consumer Protection of 26 December 2006, case file XVII AmC 170/05, it won’t be so easy to get cybersquatters who are private persons before any ADR court. This case concerned two clauses of the Domain Names Regulations issued by NASK.

22.
In case a third party initiates a legal action in the Arbitration Court against the Subscriber claiming that the Subscriber has infringed the rights of that person by entering into or performing the Agreement, the Subscriber shall submit to that Arbitration Court a duly signed arbitration clause to the Arbitration Court in due time stated in the summon to sign this arbitration clause.

23.
The non-signing of the arbitration clause specified above shall result in the termination of the Agreement three months after the time stated to sign this arbitration clause, and this time limit shall be shortened to the date of the expiry of the calculating period based on the Price List if this date occurs before the end of the three month-period after the time stated to sign this arbitration clause

After this judgment, the ADR in trade mark cases is unlikely to succeed if the disputed domain name is registered in the name of a natural person.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Internet domains and trade mark law, case I ACa 1228/05

June 14th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Poznań in its judgment of 26 April 2006, case file I ACa 1228/05, published in electronic database LEX no. 214296, ruled that in the case of a trade mark in the form of a particular word, the word representing a sign it is important, so long as it has the distinctive character and it is possible to distinguish the goods supplied or manufactured by a company from the products of another company. The appearance of a sign that may be represented by letters written in different fonts was less important in the described case. The conclusion that the only the graphic/figurative similarity between the two marks would give a plaintiff the right to assert claims arising out from article 296 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 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, would render the protection resulting from this provision purely illusory and would wreck the sense of norms arising from this article.

Article 296
1. Any person whose right of protection for a trademark has been infringed or any person who is permitted by law to do so, may demand the infringing party to cease the infringement, to surrender the unlawfully obtained profits and in case of infringement caused by fault also to redress the damage:
(i) in accordance with the general principles of law,
(ii) by the payment of a sum of money at the amount corresponding to the license fee or of other reasonable compensation, which while being vindicated would have been due on account of consent given by the holder to exploit his trademark.

1a. To the claims referred to in paragraph (1) the provisions of Article 287(2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.

2. Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(i) a trademark identical to a trademark registered in respect of identical goods,
(ii) a trademark identical or similar to a trademark registered in respect of identical or similar goods, if a likelihood of misleading the public, including in particular a risk of associating the trademark with a registered trademark, exists;
(iii) a trademark identical or similar to a renown trademark 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 trademark.

3. The claims referred to in paragraph (1) shall also be enforceable against a person who only puts on the market the goods already bearing that trademark, provided that the goods do not originate from the right holder or from a party authorised by him to use the trademark.

4. When invoking the right of protection conferred by his trademark, the licensor may enforce the claims referred to in paragraph (1) against a licensee who breaches any provision in his licensing contract with regard to its duration and territory covered by the contract, the form covered by the contract in which the trademark may be used, as well as the scope of the goods for which the trademark may be used or the quality of the goods. This shall apply accordingly to the sub-license.

5. A holder of a right of protection for a trademark may enforce the claims referred to in paragraph (1) against a licensee or a sub-licensee in case where the provisions of the sub-license contract, referred to in paragraph (4) have been breached, as well as in the case, where the contract has been concluded in breach of Article 163(2).

The Court also held that the registration of a web site under a given domain name address, and conducting a business activity through, and also its advertising, complete the condition of “trade mark use”.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.