<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Polish IP &#38; IT law - copyright trademark computer internet telecomm &#187; Directive 89/104/EEC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/european-union-law/directive-89104eec/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rychlicki.net/en</link>
	<description>Tomasz Rychlicki Intellectual Property Law Internet Law IT Law Computer Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:02:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1319/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/11/28/7296/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/11/28/7296/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 134 §1 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 151 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 245 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CC TLDs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directive 89/104/EEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish TLDs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Designer drugs are well-known as &#8220;dopalacze&#8221; in Poland (in English: boosters). They were freely available on the Polish market because of the legal loophole in the Polish Act of 29 July 2005 on Counteracting Drug Addiction. In 2010, after different mainstream media reported on several cases involving health problems caused by such drugs, the Polish [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/11/28/7296/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 211/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/10/06/7043/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/10/06/7043/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:22:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 4(5) Directive 89/104]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directive 89/104/EEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[famous trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter of consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reputed trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of goods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SOREMARTEC S.A. requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection for the trade mark Raffaello Spumante Dolce Sweet Spumante QUALITA SOPERIORE R-182895 registered for Toruńskie Piwnice Win VINPOL Sp. z o.o., currently VINPOL Sp. z o. o. SOREMARTEC claimed that this sign is similar to the renowned series of RAFFAELLO trade marks [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/10/06/7043/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Internet domains, case I ACa 1087/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/08/02/6540/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/08/02/6540/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 10 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 1206 CPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 154 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 296(1) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 296(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 296(2)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 3(1) CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 5 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directive 89/104/EEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-law issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal regulations on computer networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal rights or interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Appeallate Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish TLDs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation 40/94]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Conciliation for Internet Domains at the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications (the CCID) in its award of 9 March 2010 case file 74/09/PA dismissed the complaint brought by Italian company Bisazza against Polish entrepreneur Rafał Kacprzak Installation.pl from Wrocław who registered the following domain names: bisazza.pl, bisazza.com.pl and bisazza-installation.com. Bisazza [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/08/02/6540/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 611/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/12/6884/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/12/6884/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 141 §4 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 145 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 3(2) Directive 89/104]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 4(4)(b) Directive 89/104]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8(1) TMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directive 89/104/EEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reputed trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[well known trade marks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tiffany &#038; Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation from Huston filed a cassation complaint against the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 19 October 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 643/09. The VAC dismissed the complaint against the decision of the Polish Patent Office in which the PPO invalidated the right of protection [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/12/6884/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 466/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/05/6816/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/05/6816/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:36:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[absolute grounds for refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §1 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 120(1) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 120(2) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 133 §1 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 141 §4 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 151 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 174 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 3(1)(b) Directive 89/104]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 5(2) Madrid Agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 6quinquies Paris Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directive 89/104/EEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-traditional trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paris Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[single colour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6816</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Aquatherm GmbH registered a single green color determined by RAL 150 60 40 as a trade mark IR-863506 for goods in Class 19 such as rigid pipes of polypropylene for the supply of drinking water and heating and air conditioning systems in houses, office buildings and industrial buildings. The Company sought the recognition of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/05/6816/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

