<?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; Polish Patent Office</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-institutions/polish-patent-office/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rychlicki.net/en</link>
	<description>Tomasz Rychlicki Intellectual Property Law Internet Law IT Law Computer Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:02:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case Sp. 500/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/30/7535/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/30/7535/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On July 2008, Barbara Hildman requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection of the word-figurative trade mark BIKINI CHRISTIAN DIOR PARIS R-175224 owned by Parfums Christian Dior from Paris, and registered for goods in Class 03 such as body and face care products. Barbara Hildman argued that BIKINI CHRISTIAN DIOR PARIS [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/30/7535/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 839/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/17/7463/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/17/7463/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 154 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(2) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(6) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 170 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicinal product]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of goods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark lapse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nufarm Australia Limited, the owner of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY R-164428 registered for goods in Class 5, requested the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection for DUAL IR-0534713 owned by Syngenta Participations AG. Earlier before, Syngenta opposed the registratin of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/17/7463/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 723/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/12/28/7424/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/12/28/7424/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter of consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of goods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 2007, the Polish Patent Office registered the word-figurative trademark citibank handlowy R-190720, for the American company Citibank, N.A., a National Banking Association. In 2008, Citigroup Inc. applied for the word trade mark CITI HANDLOWY Z-337716. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection, despite the fact that Citibank N.A. is the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/12/28/7424/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 562/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/11/04/7135/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/11/04/7135/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[absolute grounds for refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 130 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 32 Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generic sign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection for the word trade mark flex fuga Z-297616 applied for by MAPEI POLSKA Sp. z o.o. for goods in Class 1 such as adhesives based on plastics and resins, silicone mortars, for goods in Class 6 such as decorative moldings, profiles, metal profiles, and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/11/04/7135/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case case Sp. 181/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/08/24/6977/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/08/24/6977/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:41:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[famous trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reputed trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[well known trade marks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Adjudicative Board of the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 15 September 2010 case Sp. 181/09 invalidated the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark LEXUS R-194634 registered for the Polish company Astin sp. z o.o. This trade mark was registered for goods and services in Classes 06, 19, 20 and 37. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/08/24/6977/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

