Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights

Archive for: Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights

Copyright law, case I KZP 18/03

April 13th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Supreme Court in its resolution of 21 October 2003 case file I KZP 18/03 held that the license agreement is essentially the contractual relationship, which on the one hand determines the permissions granted to the licensee, on the other hand it creates the obligation to pay (the right to remuneration) to authorized party, i.e. a licensor. Therefore, the provision “against the terms and conditions of authorization” that is used in Article 116 of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 90, item 631 with subsequent amendment, refers only to the right or permission to distribute the work, that was granted the licensee.

Article 116. 1. Whoever, without authorization or against its terms and conditions, disseminates other persons’ work, artistic performance, phonogram, videogram or broadcast in the original or derivative
version shall be liable to a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to 2 years.
2. If the offender commits the act specified in paragraph 1 above in order to gain material benefits,
he/she shall be liable to imprisonment for up to 3 years.
3. If the offender commits the offence specified in paragraph 1 above a regular source of income or organizes or manages a criminal activity as specified in paragraph 1, he/she shall be liable to imprisonment for 6 months to 5 years.
4. If the offender of the act specified in paragraph 1 above acts unintentionally, he/she shall be liable to a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to one year.

The Court ruled that the provision “against the terms and conditions of authorization” does not apply to obligations under the license agreement (the right to remuneration or the obligation to provide financial statements). This understanding of the concept of the authorization also refers the statutory license that existed before the amdendments to the ARNR, but with the difference that the source of “authorization” was not provided in a contract but only by statute.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case VI ACa 1259/06

March 17th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 17 October 2007 case file VI ACa 1259/06 held that the Polish Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers – APCC – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów) 16 February 2007 published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 50, item 331, with subsequent amendments, define an entrepreneur very broadly. According to the Court, this definition will even cover such entities whose activity is not associated with a typical business. Therefore, there was no reasons to deny such a status to the Polish Association od Writers and Composers (Stowarzyszenie Autorów – ZAiKS), a collecting society. This argument was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 7 April 2004 case file III SK 22/04, published in OSNP 2005/3/46. The Court had no doubt that ZAiKS is active in providing professional services, in a structured and continuous manner, on its behalf, in the field of collective management of assigned copyrights, and thus it participates in business transactions. In applying the provisions of the APCC, “commercial purpose” as the last of the important parameters of economic activity means to obtain certain benefits for the operator of such activities. The use of such obtained benefits is, however, indifferent.

The European Court of Justice in its judgment of 27 March 1974 Case C-127/73 BRT v. SABAM published in ECR 1974, p. 313, ruled that the association of authors can be deemed as an entrepreneur, because an association whose object is to exploit and manage copyrights for gain “pursues a business activity consisting in the provision of services in respect of composers, authors, and publishers”.

It was undisputed that ZAiKS grants licenses for fee, and it also collects appropriate fees for the management of assigned rights. Therefore it has a measurable financial benefits from its activities. The fact that these benefits are fully allocated to the statutory objectives does not mean, in light of the abovementioned comments that ZAiKS work has nothing to do with the commercial objectives. The Court ruled that the Society of Authors ZAiKS being a non-profit organizations, is also a legal person providing services to the public, because it is organizing public access to creative activity, and licenses the use of this creativity. Therefore, ZAiKS is an entrepreneur as defined in the APCC.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case III CZP 107/07

January 24th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its order of 6 December 2007 case file III CZP 107/07 held that a party who is not satisfied with the decision of the Copyright Commission, may bring a judicial action before the competent district court, within a period of 14 days of the notification of the said decision, only after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Copyright Commission. It is known as the so-called inadmissibility of the courts’ proceedings.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Categories: Art. 108 ARNR | collecting society | Copyright Commission | Polish Supreme Court | remuneration fee.

Copyright law, the allowed personal use

October 29th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

In a short press release published on 26 October 2007 in “Czas Świecia” (regional supplement to Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper) Marek Rydzewski, the spokesperson for Regional Police Headquater in Świecie, issued a statement while answering to a student’s question about legality and responsibility for photocopying books:

- Copying whole textbooks without a permission from persons who have rights to such work (usually those are authors or publishes) is prohibited.

False. I do not want to educate Polish Police but I think I owe my English readers short explanation about Polish copyright (I think the proper term should be Author’s right since Civil law system differs a lot from English and US approach).

Some voices appears that there are legal grounds to introduce restrictions of maximum amount of pages to be allowed to photocopy from one book (…). It seems that such statements are not justifiable. Rules established in art. 23 of the Act of Authors rights. (…) did not introduce any limits for the amount of photocopied text.

J. Barta, R. Markiewicz, Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne, Zakamycze 2004, p. 67.
Additionally, Mr Marek Rydzewski said that:

Also, the law does not allow for downloading books in electronic form from the Internet, except for those which are made available for such actions.

False. There is no rule in Polish law that “prohibits” downloading books from the Internet! For all of you who are interested in the original text of this short article here is a scanned file, JPG, 675 KB. I’ll see if they publish corrections. In passing I would like to write my short statement. Myabe it will sound strange for You but I think that photocopying a full book “kills” it somehow.

Copyright law, case VI ACa 210/07

September 26th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 June 2007, case file VI ACa 210/07, published in the electronic database Legalis, held that photographs that were taken when a movie was shoot do not need to be treated as derivative works of an audiovisual work (the movie).

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Unfair competition, case DDK-61–16-06/JK

August 3rd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection charged Vision Film Distribution and Warner Bros Poland of practices violating collective consumer interests and unfair competition delicts. Results of this proceedings are included in decisions no DDK-61–16-06/JK from May 25, 2007 and decision no DDK-5/2007 from January 31, 2007.

Access to public information, case V Ca 454/07

July 30th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

Sergiusz Pawłowicz who was also the leading programmer of Janosik project, went the same administrative proceedings as ISOC Poland. See “Access to public information, case OSK 600/04“. At the final stage the Supreme Administrative Court rejected Sergiusz’s complaint on the decision of the Voivodeship Administrative Court case file II SAB/Wr 72/02, recognizing that the proper course shall be a civil action.

Sergiusz filed a complaint requesting the civil court to order ZUS to disclose specification of KSI MAIL protocol being public information. The Regional Court in Warszawa in its judgment of 8 December 2006 case file XVI C942/04 ruled that publication of the protocol that is used by Płatnik software will not affect in any way the integrity of safety of data sent by this software. Therefore all arguments raised by ZUS with regard to data security were unfounded. The Court also held that ZUS did not prove that the protocol of KSI MAIL is protected by copyrights that belongs to Prokom Software S.A. or whether Prokom received any patent covering this protocol.

As for the argument that ZUS’s obligations regarding confidentiality of information about technologies used in Płatnik and its source code, which resulted from the agreement between ZUS and Prokom, the court held that according to the obligation to disclose public information included in article 13 of the Act on the Informatization of Activities Undertaken by Entities Fulfilling Public Tasks (in Polish: ustawa o informatyzacji działalności podmiotów realizujących zadania publiczne), the provision of the agreement as a ius dispositivum, may not impose negative consequences on Sergiusz.

The court also held that the use of the requested public information and legal interest that Sergiusz and its legal representative derrived from the social interest was beyond the scope of the whole dispute. Simply, there is no need to prove legal interest when requesting the access to public information.

ZUS filed an appeal complaint. The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 23 April 2007 case file V Ca 454/07 rejected it. The Court held that the court of first instance provided deep and proper analysis of binding legal norms and its judgment was correctly applied.

Copyright law, case I ACa 668/06

July 18th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 May 2007, case file I ACa 668/06, published in the Jurisprudence of Appellate Courts (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądów Apelacyjnych) of 2008, No 12, item 39, p. 48, held that a trivial and simple language phrase being a short fragment of popular “Baśka” song and not being a citation or borrowed quote, that was included in the disputed advertisement, and at most being an inspiration and a reference to the distant associations, does not justify the assumption of copyright infringement. The particular freedom concerns the advertising market. Indeed, such activity because of its short forms and the need for articulated skills must operate by abbreviations, references to familiar themes, characters and situations. An advertising is also a trade statement of informational nature, so it enjoys the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information. Restrictions of these rights may occur only to the extent necessary, by third party interests. While preserving the principle of non-transferability of author’s personal (moral) rights, it is permitted to waive of the exercise of these rights by the creator, to third parties, including entrepreneurs.

Copyright law, case VI ACa 1012/2005

April 22nd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 March 2006, case file VI ACa 1012/05, published in the Jurisprudence of Appellate Courts (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądów Apelacyjnych) of 2007, No 12, item 36, p. 56, held that when it comes the legal protection of the author’s work it does not matter how the infringer came into the possession of the work, or how the work arrived to him, in particular, it does not matter that the work, which is the subject of the infringement came to the infringer as unsolicited correspondence sent electronically, the so-called spam. The protection is not only afforded to the well known creator, whose works are published in big numbers, but to anyone whose rights to a protected work have been infringed in any possible way, copyright law makes no distinctions in the field of protection depending on the value of the work and the recognition enjoyed by the author.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright case, IV NSA 2238/01

March 29th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 25 April 2002, case file IV NSA 2238/01, published in MoP 2002, No. 12, p. 532, has denided the Board of the Society of the Polish Architects the right of action in a case of the infringement on the integrity of the architectural design/project.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Categories: Art. 78 ARNR | collecting society | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Supreme Administrative Court.

Copyright law, case IV CSK 303/06

March 24th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 3 January 2007 case file IV CSK 303/06 ruled that the Copyright Commision should also resolve disputes relating to the conditions of agreement between a cable operator and the collecting society on the use of copyrighted works or performances. This conditions are inter alia the method of calculation and the amount of remuneration. The Court broadly interpreted the term “dispute about the conclusion of the agreement”. The SC held that the so-called inadmissibility of the courts’ proceedings appears only if a party or both parties (a cable operator and the collecting society) will request the Copyright Commission to decide on the agreement.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case I CK 312/02

March 17th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 3 December 2003, case file I CK 312/02, has denided the right of action to a collecting society that wanted to initiate a copyright suit in the name of a living person. The Court held that the collective management does not include protection and management of moral and personal rights of living persons, creators or authors. In this case, the Polish Society of Authors and Composers (ZAIKS) wanted to bring an action for the protection of personal rights of a living author who composed music/soundtrack for the movie.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Personal rights, case I ACr 436/91

March 11th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 30 Ocrober 1991, case file I ACr 436/91, that was issued under the old Act on authors rights of 1952, ruled that the personal interests in copyrights, are special personal rights as defined by the general rules of civil law, and they are not a separate conceptual category.

Personal rights, case I CKN 818/97

January 14th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 3 September 1998, case file I CKN 818/97, published in OSP 1999, No. 7-8, item 142., ruled that the protection of personal rights/interests provided in article 23 and 24 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with later amendments, also includes author’s personal rights.

Article 23
The personal interests of a human being, in particular to health, dignity, freedom, freedom of conscience, surname or pseudonym, image, secrecy of correspondence, inviolability of home, and scientific, artistic, inventor’s and rationalizing achievements, shall be protected by civil law independent of protection envisaged in other provisions.

Article 24
§ 1 The person whose personal rights 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 rights 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.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 55/06

July 21st, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 8 September 2000, partners of a civil partnership, filed an application for word-figurative trade mark TERMO SHIELD Z-223847. This application was filed by natural persons, since these are separate entrepreneurs. Civil partnership is formed through an agreement by the partners to achieve a common business purpose. The civil partnership does not qualify as an entrepreneur. The term entrepreneur should be used only to partners of a civil partnership, and not to a partnership itself. Civil partnership has no legal personality and has no legal capacity (a capacity to be a party in legal proceedings).

Z-223847

Two partners resigned. The other filed a request to the Polish Patent Office (PPO) to make change in the Trade Mark Register with regard to persons entitled from the application. The PPO refused to make such changes. The Polish Patent Office has recognized that this was only a withdrawal from the agreement concluded between individuals. The individual partners are separate entities for the PPO and others, and the right to the applied trade mark is a co-ownership/joint tenacy. The withdrawal of two partners can not affect the change of the holder of the trade mark application according to article 162(1) 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 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.

Article 162
1. The right of protection for a trademark may be assigned or be subject to succession. The provisions of Article 67(2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.
1¹. The right of protection for a trademark may be transferred to the organizations referred to in Articles 136 and 137 as a collective trademark or collective guarantee trademark respectively or to a number of entities as a collective right of protection.
1². Transfer of the right of protection, referred to in paragraph (1¹) may be effected only with the consent of the parties who enjoy that right.
1³. Entry in the trademark register of the transfer of the right of protection, referred to in paragraph (1¹) after the regulations governing use of the trademark, referred to in Article 122 (2), Article 136(2) or Article 137(1) have been submitted.
1⁴. A collective right of protection may be transferred to a single party as a right of protection for a trademark.
2. (deleted)
3. The right of protection for a collective trademark may be assigned as a joint right of protection to the undertakings grouped in the organisation referred to in Article 136. The contract of assignment shall determine the rules governing the use of such trademark to the extent to which it is practised in respect of the regulations referred to in Article 122(2).
3¹. A collective right of protection may be transferred to the organizations referred to in Articles 136 and 137 as a collective trademark or a collective guarantee mark. A contract for the transfer of the right should specify the rules governing use of that trademark to the extent as it is provided for in respect of the regulations referred to in Article 136(2) and Article 137(1) respectively.
4. The right of protection for a trademark may also be assigned in respect of certain goods for which the right of protection has been granted, if the goods for which the trademark remains registered on behalf of the vendor are not of the same kind. Once assigned, the right in question shall be dealt with as independent of the right enjoyed by the vendor.
5. The contract of assignment of a share in the joint right of protection shall be valid subject to the consent given by all of the joint owners.
6. Paragraphs (1), (3) to (5) shall apply accordingly to the right deriving from an application filed with the Patent Office, for which no right of protection has yet been granted.

The basis for the change of the persons applying for trade mark protection should be a waiver or transfer of this right. In this case, it did not happen. The PPO does not intervene in the mutual settlement between the partners. It is an internal matter of their contractual relationship.

Two dissatisfied partners filed a complaint with the court. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 April 2006 case file VI SA/Wa 55/06 has recognized that all partners of the civil partnership applied for protection of the trade mark in question. The Court agreed with the PPO, that the mere resignation of the two partners may not affect the change of the holder of the trade mark application. The basis for the change in Trade Mark Registry may be the court order on the settlement between the partners in the property (the right of protection for a trade mark is the economic right), or the waiver of the right to trade mark application or its disposal or transfer. This requirement follows from articles 67(2), 162(1) and 168 of the IPL.

Article 67
1. The patent may be assigned or be subject to succession.
2. The transfer contract shall be in writing on pain of invalidity.
3. The transfer of a patent shall be binding on third parties as from the date of its entry in the Patent Register.

Article 168
1. The right of protection for a trademark shall lapse:
(i) on expiry of the term of protection for which it has been granted,
(ii)on surrender of the right by the owner thereof before the Patent Office, with the consent of the parties having their rights therein.
2. The surrender of the right, referred to in paragraph (1)(ii), may also concern only certain goods for which the right has been granted (restriction of the list of the goods).
3. The surrender of a share in the joint right shall result in the transfer of the share on behalf of the other joint owners, proportionally to their shares.
4. Subject to paragraph (3), in the case referred to in paragraph (1)(ii), the Patent Office shall take a decision on the lapse of the right of protection.

The Court held that the IPL is a lex specialis in relation to the Civil Code. The PPO would infringe on the rights of partners the civil partnership if it has made changes to the Trade Mark Registry with regard to entitled persons, only on the basis of changes in composition of the civil partnership. The settlement between the partners is not a cognition of the Polish Patent Office. The order of the PPO does not create the composition of the civil partnership by establishing that the partners who left are engaged in representing the company. Only the agreement on the civil partnership determines who is a partner of such a civil partnership. The order of the PPO concerns only their right to the application for the grant of a right of protection for a trade mark. This right has the nature of co-ownership/joint tenacy of all partners, unless it is regulated different as described above, i.e. by he settlement between the partners in the property, or the waiver of the right to trade mark application or its disposal or transfer.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. See also “Trade mark law, case II GSK 248/06“.

Copyright law, III CSK 40/05

April 26th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court – Civil Chamber in it judgment of 13 January 2006, case file III CSK 40/05, published in the Supreme Court’s Bulletin of 2006, No 3, the “Wokanda” magazine of 2006, No 6, p. 6, the Review of Economic Legislation (in Polish: Przegląd Ustawodawstwa Gospodarczego) of 2006, No 7, p. 32, held that the expression of human intellectual activity which lacks adequate individuating characteristics, i.e. that it would distinguish it from other products of similar nature and purpose, cannot be regarded as a work that is a subject to copyright protection. The dependent copyright may arise if there already is – and simultaneously exists – the right to the “original/primary” work, which was creatively worked out by a person who claims the right to dependent copyright.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case I CK 281/05

March 26th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 25 January 2006, case file I CK 281/05, published in the Supreme Court’s Bulletin of 2006, No 5, the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Civil Chamber (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Izba Cywilna) of 2006, No 11, item 186, p. 64, the “Wokanda” magazine of 2006, No 7-8, p. 17, held that the novelty requirement is not the essential feature of the creation process understood as an expression of human intellectual activity. The work within the meaning of article 1 of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights, can be a compilation that is using publicly available data, provided that the choice of their segregation and the way of presentation indicates originality.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | copyright law | copyrightable subject matter | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Supreme Court.

Copyright law, III CSK 40/05

March 22nd, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 13 January 2006, case file III CSK 40/05, published in electronic database LEX, under the no 176385, held that “creative” and “individual” character of a work entitled for copyright protection can of course be based on the arguments relating to the subjective relationship between the creator and his work (“personal imprint”, “characteristics of personality”), or the objective aspects, i.e. relating to the product of the human mind. In the case of the application of the second test, which must be considered in light of the views of doctrine as better justified, it is assumed that the result of intellectual effort cannot be routine, standard and typical.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case SK 40/04

February 21st, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Constitutional Tribunal in its jugment of 24 January 2006 case file SK 40/04 held the collective management organization cannot act and function in the absence of remuneration scales/tables. It would not be able to properly exercise the collective management of copyright and the principle of equal treatment, without the enactment of the tables. In this sense, the adoption of the remuneration tables is a necessity for the collective management organization. The tables/scores have bonding effect on such a collecting society, which approved them, by virtue of the act under which they were issued. In the external contractual relations, and under pending approval by the Copyright Commission, that tables are deemed as an offer. The tables bond collecting societies and licensees only if they have been approved by the Copyright Commission. For this reason, the establishement of the remuneration tables must take into account all the economic and operational issues in order to avoid arbitrariness in constructing their levels, and scope.

Personal rights, case I ACa 564/04

January 25th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 2 September 2002, Secunda company, a publisher of a portal website, posted a link to www.mlode -dupy.w.tertia.pl website on its webpage under the “Entertainment and sex” category in the “Winning websites” under the name “Young women are the best”. The link to www.mlode-dupy.w.tertia.pl website was described as follows “10 hardcore pictures galleries. One could deal with this issue far better”. The gallery no 3 featured pictures of a woman in a swimsuit, that were made during a photographic session for candidates to advertising campaign. The plaintiff who worked with models agency sued Secunda. She argued that she has never agreed to a distribution of her image, nor received any remuneration for participation in a photo session. The plaintiff noted that a link to the www.mlode-dupy.w.tertia.pl website combined with the recommendation of this site are a form of distribution of the image of a person depicted in photos available on Secunda’s website. The defendant took no steps to ascertain whether the plaintiff consented to distribute these photographs and it did not take any action to obtain such consent, the defendant’s conduct, involving the unauthorized dissemination of the image of the plaintiff on the porno website, violates her image rights and degrade her in the public due to the inclusion of her image in pornographic pictures.

Secunda claimed that it has no standing in this case because the infringer was a person who created a gallery available under www.mlode-dupy.w.tertia.pl link.

The District Court in Kraków in a judgment of 26 February 2004, case file I C 2060/03, ruled that Secunda infringed on plaintiff’s personal rights by publishing questioned images. The court said that Secunda was responsible because it had the opportunity to check the contents of the “Winning websites” section, and images contained therein. The editor was responsible for the compilation of recommendations and a link to www.mlode-dupy.w.tertia.pl website, and in this case it was Secunda.

Both parties appealed. The Appellate Court in Kraków in a judgment of 20 July 2004, case file I ACa 564/04, TPP 2004/3-4/155, rejected Secunda’s appeal and changed the lower Court’s decision on damages awarded.