<?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; Judgments of Court of Justice of the EC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/european-union-law/judgments-of-court-of-justice-of-the-ec/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>Internet domains, case C-569/08</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/06/03/4116/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/06/03/4116/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:32:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU TLD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generic sign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet domains law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments of Court of Justice of the EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation 874/2004]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4116</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/06/03/4116/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case I ACa 16/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/10/08/852/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/10/08/852/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:22:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[advertising law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directive 89/104/EEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments of Court of Justice of the EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation 40/94]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The French company Marin’s International brought a case before the Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs, located in Warsaw (in Polish: Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie Wydzial XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych). The issue concerned the use of CTMs Marin’s and Lama by the Polish company Display Flash Poland sp. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/10/08/852/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patent Attorneys, case C-564/07</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/06/13/4036/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/06/13/4036/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments of Court of Justice of the EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish patent attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treaty on European Union]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009, case C-564/07, Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Austria. 1. Declares that, by obliging patent lawyers lawfully established in another Member State who wish temporarily to perform services in Austria to appoint an approved agent resident in Austria, the Republic of Austria has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/06/13/4036/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case I CSK 96/08</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/03/20/4403/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/03/20/4403/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[famous trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments of Court of Justice of the EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knock-offs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[look-alikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-traditional trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Appeallate Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish District Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product packaging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation 40/94]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slavish imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition delict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[well known trade marks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the shade of the recent opinion of Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston QC given to the Court of Justice of the European Communities in case C‑529/07, Chocoladefabriken Lindt &#038; Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH, here is the story of couple of judgments decided in the recent suits brought against the Polish company Terravita by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/03/20/4403/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1524/08</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/12/26/5428/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/12/26/5428/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments of Court of Justice of the EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish Patent office invalidated the right of protection for NIZOPOL R-152880 trade mark owned by Zakłady Farmaceutyczne &#8220;POLFA-ŁÓDŹ&#8217; Spółka Akcyjna. The request was filed by Johnson and Johnson Company who owns NIZORAL R-57978 trade mark. The PPO held that both signs are similar and share at the beggining the same 4 letters NIZO. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/12/26/5428/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

