Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: firm

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) of 30 June 2000, 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“.

Personal rights, case I ACa 572/11

June 5th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 18 January 2010, Michał Okonek, the owner of MAP1 company, filed a petition to the court with a request to order ParaRent.com Wawrzyniak Sp. j. company seated in Szczecin, to block access to the thread entitled “a suit for the use of a part of a map” which is available at www.forumprawne.org website (http://forumprawne.org/prawo-autorskie/501-pozew-za-wykorzystanie-fragmentu-mapy.html) operated by ParaRent.com. Mr Okonek also requested the court to prohibit ParaRent.com to publish of new content concerning Michał Okonek at foras available at forumprawne.org website. Mr Okonek pointed out that ParaRent.com allows its users for posting and sharing information that unjustly accuse him of extorting money, making false statements, misleading the courts and prosecution, intimidation of Internet users, even for distributing of pornography. Moreover, users of forumprawne.org called Mr Okonek as the swindler and the parasite, while he only uses the right to sublicense the use of copyrighted works such as digital maps.

The District Court in Szczecin in its decision of 4 February 2010, case file I Co 26/10 sided with Mr Okonek and issued the order blocking the aforementioned thread. ParaRent decided to appeal.

The Appellate Court in Szczecin in its decision of 18 May 2010, case file I ACz 296/10 overruled the ban. The Court held that in cases filed against the public media, for the protection of personal rights/property, the court may refuse to grant an injunction against publication of given information if the important public interest opposes such injunction/ban.

Michał Okonek filed another lawsuit against ParaRent.com, for the protection of personal rights and compensation. The case was linked with a blocked thread. The District Court in Szczecin VIII Economic Division in its judgment of 5 May 2011 case file VIII GC 106/10 dismissed the complaint. The Court ruled the administrator of forumprawne.org website cannot be held responsible for comments that appeared on his website, unless Mr Okonek proves that the content of posts/comments was illegal, and the fact that the administartor had knowledge regarding such posts or comments, or received information from a reliable source regarding such posts or comments, and that the administrator did not fulfill his duty to disable access to such illegal content. All these prerequisite must be met together. The Court ruled that the administrator cannot arbitrarily interfere with the content published by users. These limits are set by the TOS of the forum website and the law. The Court noted that too much interference may lead to violation of freedom of expression, and thus it may also be an infringement of personal interests of users. The Court has also interpreted the meaning of the “credible information” of the illegal character of the stored data as provided in the Article 14 the Polish Act of 18 July 2002 on Providing Services by Electronic Means – PSEM – (in Polish: ustwa o świadczeniu usług droga elektroniczną), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 144, item. 1204, as amended.

1. A person who gives access to the contents of a network IT system to a customer, where the customer stores data, is not aware of the illegal features of the data or activity connected with the data and upon receiving an official notification or credible information about the illegal features of the data or activity connected with it, immediately bars access to the data, shall not be responsible for the data.
2. A Service provider who has received the official notification of an illegal character of the stored data that was supplied by the customer, and prevented the access to the data, shall not be liable to the customer for damages resulting from preventing access to such data.
3. A service provider who has received credible information of the illegal character of the stored data supplied by the customer and prevented access to the data, shall not be liable to the customer for the damage resulting from preventing access to such data, if it has immediately notified the customer of the intention to prevent access to data.

For the adoption of the credibility of information, it is necessary to show that on the basis of credible information, the ISP had an objective opportunity to assess the illegality of data placed on the Internet by the customer. A different interpretation – that each request of an interested person (legal or natural) results in receiving of credible information of the illegal character of the stored data, would cause that, in principle, anyone whose activities fall within the online forum discussion, could remove data with reference to the violation of personal interest, and it would end any discussion. As the Court noted, such situation would be against the principle of freedom of expression and the essence of Internet activity. The Court also ruled that a complext topic on Map1 actions against Internet users, which appeared in a short period of time shows great interest in the subject and proves the difficulties of the current monitoring, which, moreover, is not a responsibility of the ISP. The Administrator is not a forum editor, the users of this forum are themselves. Mr. Okonek became a public figure and therefore he should more callous. The Court decided that the administrator had acted properly moderating only part of the disputed posts.

Mr Okonek appealed. The Appellate Court in Szczecin in its judgment of 26 October 2011 case file I ACa 572/11 dismissed the complaint.

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“.

Personal interest, case I CSK 217/09

February 26th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 28 January 2010, case file I CSK 217/09, held that the continuity and repetition of violations of reputation in a certain time interval justifies the possibility of drafting the press apology as provided for in Article 24 § 1 sentence II of the Civil Code in a suitably concise and more general way, that is sufficient for defining the legal contours of (substance/essense) the press tort, its perpetrator, the nature of the tort, statements about the harmed person that were affecting the reputation of his business.

Article 24
§ 1 The person whose personal interests are threatened by someone else’s action, may require the desist of that action, unless it is not illegal. In the event of the infringement one may also require, the person who committed the violation, to fulfill the actions necessary to remove its effects, in particular, to make a statement of the relevant content and appropriate format. According to the conditions laid down in the Code one may also require monetary compensation or payment of an appropriate amount of money for a social purpose indicated.
§ 2 If as the result of a breach of personal interests one has suffered pecuniary prejudice, the aggrieved person may claim compensation based on general principles.
§ 3 The above shall not prejudice the entitlements provided by other regulations, in particular in copyright law and the patent (invention) law.

The Court ruled that the infringement of the plaintiff’s personal interest/rights (his commercial reputation and the firm) was the result of the unacceptable “opinions” and “suggestions” issued by the defendant.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 120/09

December 13th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 September 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1042/08 dismissed a complaint against the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the lapse of the right of protection for APETITO IR-615850 trade mark in part concerning the goods in Class 29. See “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1042/08“. The owner – APETITO AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT – filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgmet of 6 October 2009 case file II GSK 120/09 dismissed the complaint and held that when a person who shows its legitimate interest file a request for the invalidation of a registered trade mark becasue of non-use, the owner of the right of protection for this trade mark has to show the use of the mark in question or the existence of valid reasons justifying non-use. The scope of holder’s duty is defined within the scope of legal interest arising from a standing to file a request for the invalidation.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1011/09

November 25th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 June 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1731/08 ruled that while examining the violations of the rules of social coexistence, the Polish Patent Office must take into account also the subjective elements, which means that on existence of the conditions referred to in Article 8(1) of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments, may decide certain actions of the trade mark applicant, especially when these actions are characterized by offending behavior.

Article 8
A trademark shall not be registrable if:
1) it is contrary to law or to the principles of social coexistence;
2) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties;

This judgment concerned the invalidation proceedings of ecard R-150521 trade mark owned by Firstcove Technology Limited from Dublin. The VAC held also the right to company’s name (firm) is created at the time, when the order of entry into the commercial register is issued. However, the fact that information on the formation of a specific company was made publicly available, the issuance of which is required by law, should also be taken into account. This argument must be considered by the PPO in the assessment of allegations of violation of Article 8(2) of the TMA. The cassation complaint was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 November 2010 case file II GSK 1011/09.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 897/09

October 28th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 October 2009 VI SA/Wa 897/09 held that the company name (firm) serves as the identification and prominence of the entrepreneur in the legal and economic transactions. It is also a carrier of certain information about the characteristics and qualities of business conducted by such entrepreneur. An unauthorized interference with the function of a company name infringes on the right to the name. The company name, also of the civil partnership, is a personal interests/asset of the company and relates to its identity when it individualize such entrepreneur. The firm/company name is subject to protection of personal rights/intrests under Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 43 ^{10 of the Civil Code.}

R-143502

The Court ruled that the company name (firm) is the absolute personal right, effective erga omnes, and enjoyed by everyone including businesses and individuals that do business in the form of civil partnership. The right to a company name is formed with the entry of the entrepreneur in the business register, and in any event, when the company used for the first time in trade. Entrepreneurs may claim the right to the company name (the firm) after they have been registered in the Register of Entrepreneurs in the National Court Register or in the Economic Activity Records. The disclosure of trade name/company’s name is provided in the registry (National Court Register – Polish public register maintained by the selected regional courts and the Ministry of Justice which includes the register of enterprises). It has a declaratory nature. The Economic Activity Records are maintained by the municipality of the place of residence of the entrepreneur.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 January 2008 case file II GSK 298/07 held that the right of the company name is infringed if the registration of a trade mark conflicts and interferes with the exercise of the right to company name. See “Trade mark law, II GSK 298/07“. This conflict is based on misleading as to the identity of entities (acting under the company name and using the trade mark) and therefore it may jeopardize the company name (firm). Such conclusions were reached by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 26 April 2006 case file II GSK 31/06.

This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of word-figurative trade mark PIOR R-143502 owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Usługowo-Handlowo-Reklamowe PRIOR, Rostkowska Janina, Rostkowski Jan, Kuc Małgorzata from Chorzów.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2258/08

May 28th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 6 October 2008 case file II GSK 406/08 ordered the Voivodeship Administrative Court to reconsider the case. See “Trade mark law, case II GSK 406/08“. The VAC in its judgment of 8 April 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 2258/08 anulled the Polish Patent Office’s decision from 2007 and ordered the PPO to reconsider the invalidation of the brothers’ Miś trade mark. The Court ruled that a company name (the firm) serves to identify and to individualize an entrepreneur in legal and business market turnover, containing information about the characteristics and attributes of someone’s business. The finding that there was an infringement of these elements determines the recognition that there was an infringement of the law. However, infringement cannot be determined by the trade mark registration (even the later one) that was similar to the company name.

As the Supreme Administrative Court ruled in its judgment of 26 April 2006, act signature II GSK 31/06, the exclusive rights to the “firm” (company name) are not absolute, and the limits of its extent are set by the territory a firm operates, the subject of actual business activities of the company that is using given firm. In fact, only within these limits a conflict between similar company name (the firm) and trade mark may occur.

The Court, citing the earlier judgment of the District Administrative Court in Warsaw of case file 6 II SA 2757/02, ruled that the PPO had to consider if the registration of a disputed trade mark prevents other market participants from use a sign which has a purely informational meaning.

Trade mark law, case V CSK 109/08

April 24th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

VKR Holding A/S from Horsholm sued Polish company OKPOL for trade mark infrigement and the delict of unfair competition. The suit was based on article 296(2)(iii) 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 Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Dziennik Ustaw No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments.

Infringement of the right of protection for a trade mark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(iii) a trade mark identical or similar to a renowned trade mark 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 trade mark.

The suit was also based on Article 3(1) the 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.

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 District Court ruled that the figurative element of the trade mark in question, and its characteristic composition, have more influence on consumer awareness and subconscious than does their verbal aspect and that it is therefore necessary to protect VKR Holding’s brand, even if there are differences between the competing signs in verbal aspects. The court held that the signs are similar and that VELUX, being the renowned one, should benefit from the increased legal protection, as compared to “normal” i.e. the later mark of OKPOL company. The Polish company did not agree with such findings and filed an appeal complaint.

R-63259

The Court of Appeal in its judgment of 3 October 2007, shared the conclusions and assessments of the court of first instance that VELUX brand has the status of a reputable and renowned trade mark, and that word-figurative sign OKPOL is similar to VELUX which brings the risk of association between these signs. The risk of confusion is determined by the dominant element that both marks share – the red rectangle. According to the Court there is a similarity between disputed trade marks because of the overall visual impression and there is no significant difference in the word characters. The Court of Appeal also agreed for the admissibility of granting the protection under article 3(1) of the CUC because OKPOL’s action were in Court’s opinion very parasitic. In the Court’s view such behaviour was based on taking the advantage of VELUX’s renown and should be deemed an act of unfair competition, as behaviour contrary to the principles of good practices, which should be based honesty in business.

The Polish company filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland in which it asked three important questions:
(a) May a person try to prohibit the use of a registered trade mark, referring to the right of registration of another trade mark?
(b) Is the protection of well-known/renowned trade marks based on the article 296(2)(iii) of the IPL or may it be protected also with reference to the provisions of the Act on combating unfair competition?
(c) How far one person can monopolize the principle of creating trade marks, especially word-figurative trade marks in relation to commonly encountered combination of colours and shapes that are used on the market?

The Polish Supreme Court in its judgment of 23 October 2008 case file V CSK 109/08 agreed with the lower courts that the risk of association should be based on similiarity of figurative elements that both trade marks share. In court’s opinion, the overall visual impression is the basis for creating a positive image of VELUX products and it decides on the risk of association, in consequence, enabling for the parasitic use of the mark by the Polish company and which also led to dilution of the distinctive character and reputation associated with the VELUX trade mark.

R-183931

The Court also ruled that, if the use of a registered trade mark infringes on a previously registered trade mark, the infringer should refrain from using his right of protection because it is not a subject to protection based on rules of the civil law. The protection granted by the Polish Patent Office has only a formal aspect and it is governed by the administrative proceedings. In case of trade mark infringement it is up to the civil court to decide during the civil proceedings whether trade mark that was registered later should be afforded legal protection. There is no reason and no need to file a request for invalidation of the right of protection before the PPO.

In the answer to the second question the SC based its answer on the wording of Article 1(2) of the IPL.

The provisions of this Law shall not prejudice the protection of the subject matter referred to in paragraph (1)(i) [i.e. the relationships in the field of inventions, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, geographical indications and topographies of integrated circuits], provided for in other legal acts.

The protection of renowned trade marks is afforded by both acts. As regards “monopolization”, the SC ruled that the Polish company was banned from using a sign that associates to a specific sign used by the VKR Holding A/S. Accordingly no-one was granted a protection right to the principle of creating a trade mark.

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.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 400/08

December 29th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1470/07“. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 28 October 2008 case file II GSK 400/08 held that the infringement of the right to the company name (the firm) as a condition for the invalidation of the registration of a trade mark, should not be prejudged by the registration of the same or similar trademark, as the name of another company.

R-222381

An important factor determining the infringement of personal or property rights of third parties, is the risk of leading a consumer to confusion as to the identity of the entrepreneur, and it determines the territorial and substantive scope of the actual activities of the entity using a given name, which is the subject of the trade mark, which has been granted the right of protection. This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of MURBET R-155245 trade mark owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Wielobranżowe MURBET Andrzej Zaborski. The proceedings were initiated by the MURBET Gabrylewicz Spółka Jawna company from Ełk.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2113/08

December 23rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Skandinaviska Farginstitutet AB the owner of NCS Natural Color System R-129085 trade mark filed opposition against the decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of the right of protection for COLOR SYSTEM R-171995 trade mark for AGENCJA PROMOCYJNA “COLOR SYSTEM” Iwona Emilia Hachlica. The PPO dismissed the opposition.

R-129085

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 December 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 2113/08 affirmed this decision. The VAc held that the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in relation to the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the trade marks at issue must be based on the overall impression, taking account in particular, their distinctive and dominant components/elements. The Court ruled also that the registration of the trade mark in a given form does not afford the exclusivity in relation to particular elements of this trade mar, apart from situations where a part of the sign is a reputed/renown trade mark.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 361/06

December 12th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 9 July 1998, the Polish company called “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL Spólka z o. o.” (PUTI) applied for trade mark reigstration for word-figurative sign “i INTEL” in class 37 for services such as: electric appliance installation and repair, fire alarm installation and repair, burglar alarm installation and repair, installation and repair of extinguishing and smoke ventilation systems, installation and repair of access control systems, and in class 38 for industrial television. The Polish Patent Office has granted the protection rights in its decision of 9 December 2002. On 21 July 2003, Intel Corporation has filed an opposition against the PPO’s decision. Since the trade mark application was filed while the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with subsequent amendments, was in force, so the opposition had to be based on its article 8(1) and (2) and article 9(1)(i) and (ii).

Article 8
A trademark shall not be registrable if:
(i) it is contrary to law or to the principles of society coexistence;
(ii) it infringes the personal or economic rights of third parties;

Article 9
(1) Registration of a trademark for goods of the same kind shall not be permissible where:
(i) it resembles a mark registered on behalf of another enterprise to such an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;
(ii) it is similar to a trademark that is well known in Poland as a trademark for goods of another enterprise to an extent that it could mislead purchasers as to the origin of the goods in ordinary economic activity;

To support its opposition, Intel Corp. has provided arguments that a sign is applied for or registered in contrary to the principles of society coexistence if it seeks to use or to undermine the reputation of other trade mark, regardless of the nature of the goods or services to which it refers. Intel Corp. successfully argued that Intel is word trade mark which is well-known and reputable. It is widely recognized and valued as a synonym for the highest quality products branded by this sign (or its derivatives) in the IT sector. The widespread knowledge of that trade was also confirmed in the Polish Patent Office’s decision in early 1994. The features and the highest quality of Intel brand products have also to be attributed to the Intel Inside trade mark because of its equally vast, global popularity and strong positive associations among customers. Intel R-93693 and Intel Inside R-86431 trade marks were registered in Poland in priority, respectively of 8 November 1990 and 18 June 1991.

“i Intel” is a sign which has a distinctive part consisting of Intel sign which is similar to Intel Copr. trade marks. It leads consumers to think that there is an association between Intel Corporation and a disputed sign, consequently, there is a risk of confusion as to the origin of goods or services which are identified by the disputed mark. According to Intel Corp., the use of the contested trade mark by PUTI was based on the reputation and the widely recognized quality of Intel trade mark. PUTI registration was made in favour of its marketing business and for the economic benefits of the Polish company. This kind of behavior also brings the risk of confusion among consumers as to the identity, trade and economic links and between Intel Corporation and PUTI. In addition, Intel Corporation has filed the explanatory memorandum arguing that “i Intel” sign violates the applicant’s personal rights. The firm (protected as personal rights under the Polish Civil Code) is the name under which Intel Corporation conducts its business, it is also the reputation of a company, to which the applicant has worked since 1968 (the establishment of Intel Corporation in the U.S.).

Since fields of business activities of PUTI and Intel Corp. did not overlap, The Polish firm argued that Intel Corp. had not demonstrated that the disputed trade mark makes difficult for Intel to use its company name. PUTI has also argued that the opposition should not be based on article 9 of the PTA since the disputed trade mark is designated for services not goods. PUTI argued that it has been using the name “Przedsiebiorstwo Uslug Technicznych INTEL” in 1989 and 1990, which was before Intel Corporation had registered its trade marks in Poland.

The Polish Patent Office invalidated “i Intel” trade mark in its decision of 19 October 2005. It was proved before the PPO that PUTI was founded on 23 July 1997 as a limited liability company, and previously (from 1 November 1983) it had operated on the market in the form of a civil company and the name Intel had been used for the first time in its firm in 1994. In PPO’s opinion, PUTI’s use of “i Intel” sign with ® before trade mark registration was granted was also a proof of taking the advantage of reputation of Intel Corp. trade marks, which was contrary to the principles of society coexistence that were defined in this case as a matter of fairness trade.

PUTI appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 21 April 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 126/06 dismissed the appeal. The court held that trade marks of Intel Corp. that were registered with the earlier priority are renowned in Poland in relation to the persons involved in electronics, computers, electrical and electronic equipment of various kinds, and PUTI’s application for the contested trade mark was intended to use the reputation of Intel Corp. trade mark portfolio. In court’s opinion the Polish Patent Office has had to compare these trade marks with the disputed sign in aural verbal and visual aspects and it has reasonably concluded that there is a clear likeness between them, and given that the signs are used for determining goods, which are compatible with regard to services to which the disputed trade mark is intended use, so there was a condition for the inadmissibility of the disputed trade mark registration within the meaning of article 9.

PUTI filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court. However, the Court dismissed the case in its judgment of 15 May 2007 case file II GSK 361/06. SAC explicitly held that Intel is well-known trade mark on the Polish market (strong sign) and its reputation was not questioned even by the Polish company. Consequently, it should be considered that the danger of confusion between trade marks by customers, is the greater, the more well-known (or as the Court also said – standardized) is a trade mark with an earlier priority, because customers’ memory directs them in a particulary easy way, to trade marks which are well-known on the market.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 406/08

October 28th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The MIŚ company has operated on the Polish market since 1956 in the form of an “industrial plant”, but until 1978, it used the name “Wojewódzki Zwiazek Gminnych Spóldzielni Samopomoc Chlopska-Zaklad Wyrobów Cukierniczych Miś” in Oborniki Śląskie. The complex name was changed to “Spóldzielnia Pracy Produkcyjno Handlowa MIŚ” in 1978 and again to “Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIŚ” in 1992.

R-90583

Włodzimierz Miś and Jerzy Miś – “Bracia Miś” (Bear’s brothers) have started their activity in 1989. They use a single word “Miś” (bear) as their company name and produce confectionery since 1993. “Bracia Miś” have applied for the word-figurative trade mark “Mis” in 1992. The Polish Patent Office has granted the protection right in 1995 under the no. R-83022. The Company from Oborniki Slaskie received trade mark protection right for the figurative sign consisting of bear’s head in 1996 under the no. R-90583.

R-83022

Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIS filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection of “Bracia Miś” trade mark. The PPO agreed and invalidated the contested trade mark in 2001 for the first time. The case went for the appeal to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw which annuled the PPO’s decision. The Administrative court pointed that Polish Patent Office did not properly justified its decision and did not consider judgments of two civil courts that previously ruled in case of “Bracia Miś” and Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIŚ as regards similarity of both signs and the use of “Bracia Miś” trade mark as a company name (a short explanation: Polish civil courts decide trade mark infringement cases while administrative courts decide appeals and cassation complaints related to administrative procedure and cases before PPO).

Once again, the PPO invalidated “Bracia Miś” trade mark in 2007. The Office ruled that the registration should not be allowed because it violated personal rights of Zaklady Wyrobów Cukierniczych MIŚ – the right to a company name – which enjoyed a long tradition and reputation. Again, the case went for an appeal to VAC. Trade mark attorney who was representing “Bracia Miś” presented arguments that their products are only sold in company’s owned shops and there is no risk of consumers confusion. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 22 October 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 921/07 did not follow such arguments so the case went to the Polish Supreme Administrative Court as cassation complaint. The SAC agreed with “Bracia Miś” and held that the PPO did not indicate on which evidences the annullement was based in its decision and that the PPO failed to comply with regulations provided in the Code of Administrative Procedure. The VAC by accepting PPO’s decision has failed to comply with administrative proceedings rules which which in consequence was the reason to invalidate VAC’s judgment.

The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 October 2008 case file II GSK 406/08 is final and binding. It means that the Voivodeship Court has to annul the Polish Patent Office’s decision from 2007 and order the PPO to reconsider the invalidation of “Bracia Mis” trade mark. See also “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2258/08“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 332/08

October 14th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On December 1999, Polish company Top Choice Agata Murawska has applied for trade mark registration for word mark WINNER and word-figurative sign W WINNER in Class 21 for goods such as combs, hair brushes and other products and in Class 29 for rollers. In 2003, The Polish Patent Office granted the right for protection respectively R-148543 and R-148540.

R-148540

Inter Vion SA from Warszawa decided to invalidate aforementioned registrations claiming that those trade marks are the company name (the firm) of Tong-Fong Brush Factory Co. Ltd., from Taiwan which is one of the biggest producers of brushes, combs and mirrors (60 milions of pieces produced in 2000). The WINNER sign, although not registered, was used by Taiwanese company since 1997 on the Polish market. The Company from Taiwan presented an offer involving a series WINNER products to several of Polish companies, including Inter Vion and Top Choice. Since 1998 Top Choise has imported the above-mentioned accessories bearing WINNER trade mark, first by intermediaries, and since 2000 directly from the Taiwanese company. InterVion has signed its first importation contract for WINNER products in 1999. The company has presented first images of these goods in its directory of 1999/2000. During invalidation proceedings before the Polish Patent Office InterVion has alleged that Top Choice, by registering the disputed marks, tried to gain a monopoly on the importation of products.

The PPO invalidated WINNER and W WINNER trade marks in its decision of 4 October 2006, act signatures Sp. 119/05 and Sp. 46/06. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw has dismissed Top Choice’s appeal complaints in its judgments of 27 August 2007, case files VI SA/Wa 114/07 and VI SA/Wa 115/07.

Top Choice filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court claiming that VAC erred in its findings and violated the administrative procedure rules. The SAC in its judgment of case file II GSK 332/08 dismissed the cassation and based its arguments on procedural errors included in Top Choice’s complaint which in court’s opinion lacked proper claims’ construction. However, SAC also held that company who registered other company’s name as a trade mark acted in bad faith which was a sufficient circumstance to declare invalidation of such trade mark by the PPO.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 1110/08

September 6th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its recent judgment of 24 July 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 238/08, dismissed Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation’s appeal against the Polish Patent Office (PPO) decision of 19 March 2007, cases files Sp. 68/04 and Sp. 69/04, regarding the invalidation of the right of protection for word-figurative trade marks: TIFFANY R-128063 and “Tiffany & Broadway Inc.” R-128064 which were registered in class 25 for shoes.

The invalidation proceedings were started by Tiffany & Co. from New York. The New York’s company alleged not only the similarity of signs but also a breach of its over-150-year reputation applied to jewellery products. During one of the hearings before the Polish Patent Office, Tiffany & Co. provided evidence of a witness as regards the reputation and universal knowledge of Tiffany & Co. brand. The witness stressed that, although in post-war Poland the Tiffany brand was not present on the Polish market, the press (women’s magazines and other publications) wrote about the Tiffany & Co. as the provider of luxurious jewellery. The court has affirmed the PPO’s findings that the TIFFANY trade mark has the reputation even if it was not registered in Poland. Judge Olga Żurawska-Matusiak decided that renowned signs or snobbish signs (sic!) do not need to be widely known to the public. It is a sufficient factor if they are known to the relevant public, to whom such signs are addressed, those are consumers who are interested in buying luxury goods. If there exists an international reputation of a sign – it also includes Poland.

Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 8 July 2009, case file II GSK 1110/08 ruled that the reputation of a trade mark is associated with its highly distinctive character. One could say that a reputed trade mark is the one that has a high ability to automatically trigger associations with the product for which it was registered. It is quite obvious that this ability will be weaker, adequately to the number of cases of using the same or similar trade mark as a designation of other goods that are originating from other entrepreneurs. With regard to the plea of weakening (the dilution) of the reputation of the Tiffany trade mark, i.e. weakening its individuality, based on the ability to cause the automatic association with the goods marked by this sign, such effects are also caused by unquestioned by the Court numerous registrations of identical or similar trade marks for other entrepreneurs for various other goods, as well as the use of this sign the name of very different businesses.

The SAC annulled the questioned judgment and remitted the case to the VAC for reconsideration in accordance with the conclusions reached and ordered the Polish Patent Office to pay Tiffany & Broadway Inc. Div. of Texpol Corporation 1200 PLN as reimbursement of costs of the cassation compliant.

Trade mark law, II GSK 298/07

March 19th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2000 the PHU Makroterm K. Wąchała & A. Wąchała applied for the registration of the figurative and word mark MAKROTERM in classes 6, 9, 11 and 42. The Makro Cash and Carry company, who applied for the registration of the figurative and word mark MAKRO in classes 1–45 on 22 March 2000, opposed to the registration. Upon finding the observations groundless, the case was then decided by the Polish Patent Office (PPO).

Makro Cash and Carry claimed that the disputable mark imitated the MAKRO mark, used its renown and infringed the company’s right to a company name. Makroterm in turn said there was no likelihood of confusion since the disputed mark did not use the renown of the MAKRO mark because of the fact that Macro Cash and Carry failed to prove the MAKRO mark had been renowned. The Makroterm representative also said the MAKRO mark had not been universally known.

The PPO overruled MAKRO’s opposition. It decided that in assessing similarity one should not focus solely on one element – the “makro” word. It also said the MAKROTERM mark was one word combining the “makro” and “term” words into an original name that moreover had been put in a colourful design. According to the Office both marks brought about different associations in the minds of the relevant public. It decided that the marks themselves differed and did not examine similarity in goods offered by the companies. The Office also pointed out that the provided advertising materials concerned only the MAKRO CASH AND CARRY mark. With regard to the infringement of the right to a company name it decided the name was a compound one so there could not have been any infringement.

Makro Cash and Carry filed an appeal against the decision of the Polish Patent Office. It read that the Office had not assessed the similarity of goods offered by both companies and with identical goods the criteria for assessing similarity of marks are much stricter. Makro Cash and Carry also said the Polish Patent Office assessed only the differences but it should have assessed similarities.

Makroterm in turn underscored that the universal recognition of the MAKRO sign had not been adequately demonstrated and that the mark had been recognized by a half of the relevant public. It also questioned the research commissioned in 2006 by the MAKRO company.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, in a judgment of 22 March 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 1325/06, rejected the appeal. The Court held that the PPO had already compared the marks with regard to all three planes and decided that the marks bore fundamental differences. It decided that the “makro” word was a common one and had little distinctive value. Apart from that it found the “term” word much more distinctive, which together with colourful design of the MAKROTERM mark made both marks different.

MAKRO filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The Supreme Court in the judgment of 15 January 2008, case file II GSK 298/07 fully agreed with the earlier judgement of the Voivodeship Court and the decision of the Polish Patent Office. It also decided there was no similarity between the marks that would lead to a confusion neither on the phonetic, nor conceptual, nor figurative plane. The mark also had not infringed the appellant’s right to the name of his company.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1470/07

October 30th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

This case concerned the invalidation proceedings of MURBET R-155245 trade mark owned by Przedsiębiorstwo Wielobranżowe MURBET Andrzej Zaborski. The proceedings were initiated by the MURBET Gabrylewicz Spółka Jawna company from Ełk.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 17 October 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 1470/07 held that the registration of a trade mark which infringes personal or property rights of third parties is unacceptable, and in light of case-law, in case of conflict between the company name (the firm), and a trade mark that registered with the “worse priority”, the priority shall be given to the earlier right. However, the exclusive rights to the company name (the firm) is not absolute. Its limits are set by the territorial and substantive coverage, the actual activity of person using the names. Only within these limits there may be a collision between identical or similar company name (the firm) and trademark.

R-222381

The VAC held that because of the distinct areas of the business activity of the person entitled to the company name and the holder of the right of protection to MURBET R-155245 trade mark, there is no risk of leading their consumers to confusion as to the identity of such business or the owner of the later trade mark. The owner of the questioned trade mark does not use the reputation associated with the earlier (identical or similar ) company name (the firm), then it is difficult to find the collision of these two rights, and consequently a breach of an earlier right to the company name by the registration of the later trade mark. The judgment is not final. See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 400/08“.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 13/07

July 19th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

Wierzbicki Jan, Krzywdziński Andrzej Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno Handlowo Usługowe MACRO applied to the Polish Patent Office (PPO) for “ŚWIAT KAWY I HERBATY” (TEA AND COFFE WORLD) trade mark Z-205579, for goods in classes 30, 42. Dariusz Z. who conducts its business under the firm “Świat Kawy i Herbaty” and who had established contractual relationships with the applicant, submited to the Patent Office his observations as to the existence of grounds that may cause a right of protection to be denied. The PPO refused to grant rights of protection for “ŚWIAT KAWY I HERBATY” trademark. MACRO filed a complaint. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 July 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 871/06 upheld the contested decision and MACRO filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 May 2007 case file II GSK 13/07 held that the firm (company name) of a individual person is its personal right/interest and it may be an obstacle to registration of a trade mark. According to the SAC, the sale of goods on the stand/trading post under the trade name identical to that trade mark cannot be treated as a trade mark use since the essence of the trade mark is to identify the goods with a particular trader, and the use of the mark should primarily consist of placing a mark on the products or their packaging.

Unfair competition, case V CSK 237/06

June 22nd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

Hortex Holding SA Company (Hortex) filed a suit against Hortino, seeking (i) a preliminary injunction to prohibit Hortino labelling its products with its trade mark, (ii) an order that Hortino publish an apology in the press, and (iii) the return of unjustified and undeserved profits gained through the trade mark infringement.

The legal dispute between Hortex and Hortino spanned two different jurisdictions. Trade mark invalidation suits are based on the administrative procedure and this case was reported in my post entitled “Trade mark law, case II GSK 63/05“.

While the administrative procedure was running its course, Hortex commenced civil proceedings against Hortino. Its petition included a claim for trade mark infringement under articles 19 and 20 of the old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with later amendments, repealed on 22 August 2001 by the 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, and breach of article 10 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 10
(1) Such indication of products or services or its lack, which may mislead customers in relation to the origin, quantity, quality, components, manufacturing process, usefulness, possible application, repair, maintenance and another significant features of products or services as well as concealing the risks connected with their use, shall be the act of unfair competition.
(2) Releasing for free circulation products in the packing which may cause effects referred to in section 1 above shall be the act of unfair competition, unless the use of such packing is justified by technical reasons

Hortex asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction against Hortino and to order Hortino to publish a specified apology in the press. Hortex also asked the court to order the reimbursement of unfounded and undeserved profits gained by means of its trade mark infringement. The Court of the First Instance acknowledged the first two claims in its judgment but did not issue any order regarding the monetary award because, in its opinion, Hortex had not proved sufficiently that any of Hortino’s profits had been obtained through the use of its similar trade mark. Both parties appealed.

The appellate court varied the judgment in so far as it affected monetary damages and ordered Hortino to pay 304,000 zloty. The court based its calculations on a test of a fictional licence fee. Hortino then filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Court, insisting that the judgment was decided in contravention of the CUC and the TMA, some procedural regulations, and even international treaties. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 10 August 2006, case file V CSK 237/06, dismissed the petition and upheld the contested judgment. Judge Tadeusz Zyznowski pointed that all courts, including the Supreme Administrative Court, had reached their decisions in a proper manner. Hortino’s actions were clearly made in bad faith and could lead many consumers to confusion about the origin of labelled and sold products.

The method of establishing the quantum of profits gained by the trade mark infringer is based on the Court of Second Instance’s findings. That court ruled that the measure should be a fictional and hypothetical licence agreement’s fee that would be owed to the trade mark holder if the disputing parties were to have signed a trade mark licence agreement. In the civil proceedings, the appellate court set the fee level at 3 per cent of all profits gained by Hortino when it was selling goods bearing the disputed trade mark.

The Republic of Poland is one of many European countries that, in the course of its legal history, adopted the civil law system. From the point of view of common law lawyers, it simply means that Polish courts do not follow their opinions and judgments. There are no legally binding precedents except for the Supreme Court’s legal rulings. Nonetheless, after the Supreme Court’s final judgment in the issue described above, based on the cassation procedure, one may be sure that all inferior courts will be eager to employ the methods stipulated in this instance.