Polish IP & IT law » Internet domains law

Archive for: Internet domains law

Poland: football fans play with lawyers

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 Ico 203/09, decided to grant the injunction and ordered the prohibition of placing at koniecpzpn.pl website the following trade marks owned by the PZPN: R-142616, R-170024, R-188961 i 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.

See also my post entitled “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 with the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw.

The Court in a judgment of 30 Novmeber 2007, case file II SA/Wa 71/07 ruled that the complaint was based on articles 29(2) of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), 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 later amendments

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.

in connection with article 22 of the PPD

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, 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 VAC 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 articles 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 VAC had to consider the question of whether the application met the conditions set in article 29 of the PPD. The Lawyer 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, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 43, item 296, with later 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.

See also my posts entitled “Polish regulations on personal data protection“, “Polish case law on personal data protection” and “Polish case law on domain names“.

Internet domains, case I ACa 272/06 – domain name IS NOT property under the Polish law

February 8th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Katowice, in a 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, Telecommunications Law – TLA – (in Polish: Prawo telekomunikacyjne), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 171, item 1800 with later 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 my post entitled “Polish case law on domain names“.

I was wrong, domain names, case X GC 1245/03

October 6th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Well, as I wrote in my previous post – errare humanum est. My good friend Marcin Sochacki reminded me that there is an earlier judgment of the Polish court regarding the cybersquatting issue. It is a judgment of the District Court in Łódź, X Commercial Division of 22 June 2004, case file X GC 1245/03, Microsoft versus Robert Rudecki, it was decided in absentia. The case concerned microsoft.pl and microsoft.com.pl domain names. Unfortunately, I do not have an access to the text of this decision.

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on domain names“.

Finally, first

October 1st, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Update on January 29, 2010.
Just see my post entitled “I was wrong“. ;)

I may be wrong (errare humanum est right?) but it looks like the Appellate Court in Białystok in its judgment of 6 May 2008, case act signature I ACz 364/08 decided the first Polish court’s case regarding the cybersquatting issue. The court simply ruled:

Moreover, 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 later 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 Polish Act of 16 April 1993 On combating unfair competition. Such actions, however, have also an economic overtone, and therefore they concern the economic rights.

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on domain names“.

New TLDs, new challenges

June 27th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

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.

Categories: Class46 post | Internet domains law | trademark law.

Women and intellectual property

February 18th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On March 14, 2008, The Polish Patent Office together with The WIPO, The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, The Polish Agency for Enterprise Development, The National chamber of Commerce and The Polish Confederation of Private Employers LEWIATAN organize a conference “IP protection as a condition for women’ success in science and business” which will be located in Warsaw at The Polish National Library. During the above mentioned conference there will be also held an official ending of the 3rd edition of “The Woman-Inventor” competition-plebiscite.

Poland: gmail.pl to remain with poets

February 7th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reports of a decision by the Court of Conciliation for Internet Domains, which is part of the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications (PIIT). In its decision the court rejected Google’s complaint based on procedural issues and decided that the domain Gmail.pl will remain registered in the name of “Grupa Młodych Artystów I Literatów”, the “Group of Young Artists and Men of Letters”.

Categories: Class46 post | Internet domains law | Polish TLDs | domain names.

IP rights in IT businesses

November 2nd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

Innovators Network has invited me to chair a workshop focusing on SMEs from the IT sector. I’ll teach them how to define intellectual assets and protect it, as well as, to raise capital, develop partnerships, and create new streams of revenue. This workshop is titled “Discover a New Source of Income for Your Company through Usage of Intellectual Property. Turning Your Innovation into a Successful Business”. It will take place on December 6, 2007, in beautiful Kraków. If you are around during this time and you’d like to meet then let me know.

Domain name front running

October 26th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has begun an investigation into accusations that some insiders may be using inside information to collect data and purchase unregistered domain names that get a lot of DNS lookup requests—nonexistent domains that surfers frequently try to access. ICANN refers to the practice as “domain name front running”.

The ICANN’s statement is available at icann.org website, PDF file. You will find more details about this issue in the article available at arstechnica.com website.

Categories: Internet domains law | domain names.