<?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 &#187; Art. 18 CUC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-combating-unfair-competition/art-18-cuc/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>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:25:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case V CSK 71/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/03/11/3292/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/03/11/3292/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:22:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 10 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 120(2) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 18 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 296(1) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 296(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 296(2)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class46 post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[famous trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reputed trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[well known trade marks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=3292</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Technopol Publishing Agency filed a suit against Phoenix Press and Bauer Publishing House. Technopol requested the court to prohibit both defendants from putting on the market all magazines and periodicals bearing the number &#8220;100&#8243; or its multiples, and journals bearing the titles composed of three Arabic numerals together with the words &#8220;panorama&#8221; (in Polish: panorama) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/03/11/3292/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unfair competition, case III CZP 58/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/10/19/3874/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/10/19/3874/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 15 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 18 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition delict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=3874</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court of first instance held that the basic relationship linking the parties was the agreement of sale of goods defined as to its kind/sort, and therefore, the ownership of the goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant passed in the moment of their release. Therefore, the fees for marketing services and logistics were [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/10/19/3874/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case I ACa 967/08</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/07/05/4276/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/07/05/4276/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:45:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 155 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 18 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 6 CC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Appellate Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Civil Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exhaustion of trade mark rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark fair use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4276</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Appellate Court in Poznań in its judgmet of 28 January 2009, case file I ACa 967/08 held that after the introduction of goods bearing a trademark on the market, the right of protection is &#8220;exhausted&#8221; This follows directly from article 155(1) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/07/05/4276/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
