Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition

Archive for: Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition

Unfair competition law, case I CKN 1319/00

December 7th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Lego system A/S, Lego Trading A/S, Kirkbi A/S from Denmark and Lego Polska spólka z o.o. sued Polish companies “COBERT” spólka z o.o. and “COBI” for unfair competition (the delict of imitating a product) based on regulations included in article 13 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 subsequent amendments.

Article 13.1. Imitating a finished product by way of technical means of reproduction, to copy an external image of such product where it may mislead customers as to the identity of the producer or product, shall be the act of unfair competition.

2. Imitating functional features of a product, in particular its make, structure and form ensuring its usefulness shall not be deemed the act of unfair competition. Where the imitation of functional features of a finished product requires including its characteristic form, which may mislead customers as to the producer or product identity, the imitator is under obligation adequately to mark the product.

COBERT is a manufacturer of plastic bricks. These bricks are structurally compatible with LEGO’s bricks and externally; some of them are very similar to LEGO’s. There is a “Cobi” trade mark impressed on each brick. The right for protection was granted by the Polish Patent Office on 6 September 1993 (R-77743). Each packaging is printed in colour and in addition there is a clearly visible “Cobi” sign in six different places of the packaging. There is also a sign of the manufacturer, with an indication of his exact address. The court of first instance noted that colours and themes of packaging for COBERT bricks are different than those used by LEGO. Those findings were acknowledged by the court of appeal. The court also held that the average customer can not be confused as to the origin of these bricks. According to the Court, the plaintiffs did not show any evidences that would allow them to base its claims on the so-called “unnamed delict” as afforded by regulations included in Article 3(1) of the CUC.

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.

LEGO filed a cassation complaint before the Polish Supreme Court in which it requested the Supreme Court to overrule the court of appeal’s jugdment and to order the court of appeal to hear the case again or to change the appealed judgment by the SC and to issue a ruling as to the facts and costs of proceedings. The SC dismissed the cassation complaint. The Court noticed that parties had provided both extensive and exhaustive arguments about the conditions leading to qualify an act as unfair competition delict. Those arguments included economic, legal, even ethical issues. However, the Court held that imitation of others’ products is not reprehensible and blameworthy per se. The progress of civilization is possible thanks to the past legacy. Therefore, the development and improvement of each product is in the public interest. The Supreme Court found that CUC regulations are designed to ensure the accuracy of the behavior and activities of business entities in conditions of free competition and access to the market on an equal footing.

The Polish Supreme Court in its judgment of 11 July 2002 case file I CKN 1319/00 found that implementation of the constitutional principle of economic freedom also justifies the search for balance between market freedom and the freedom of goods circulation and the objectives of the CUC. The court found that the ban on other’s products imitation would lead to the emergence of unlimited monopoly against exploitation of technical solution (technology) and would prevent or at least hindered from entering the market for other companies engaged in the same or similar business activity. In Court’s view that was based on the principle of economic freedom and the rules of fair competition, such ban would be in contradiction with the law. The mere imitation of goods of another business, imitation of goods that are not enjoying any special protection by exclusive rights, does not conflict with the pursuit of competition and does not justify the interpretation of article 13 or 3 of the CUC that it is a delict of unfair competition, even if copies are in the same size as the original brick. As regards the packaging the SC held that comprehensive and clear indication of the manufacturer which is placed on a product packaging, and permanent placement of a trade mark on each product, which are put on the market, excludes the possibility of consumer confusion as to the identity of the manufacturer or the product.

Some stats

November 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In Poland, all infringement cases in the field of industrial property, copyright and unfair competition are decided by civil courts. The number of cases in the first half of 2008, was as follows:
1. Circuit Courts (first instance):

Industrial Property, the courts’ statistic symbol 034 – total: 25 cases.
Copyright, the courts’ statistic symbol 033 – total: 117 cases.
Unfair competition, the courts’ statistic symbol 652 – total: 93 cases.
Cases under the scope of protection of trademarks and designs, the courts’ statistic symbol 653 – total: 89 cases.

2. Courts of Appeal (second instance):

Industrial Property, the courts’ statistic symbol 034 – total: 5 cases.
Copyright, the courts’ statistic symbol 033 – total: 34 cases.
Unfair competition, the courts’ statistic symbol 652 – total: 24 cases.
Cases under the scope of protection of trademarks and designs, the courts’ statistic symbol 653 – tota:l 24 cases.

Categories: Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish law.

Polish regulations on the protection of trade secrets

October 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

I. Definitions
There is no definition of “trade secrets” in Polish law. However, there are regulations that allow for very effective protection.

II. The law
The main sources of binding laws in the Republic of Poland are the Constitution of 2 April 1997, acts passed by the Parliament, ratified international treaties and regulations issued, for example, by the Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers – Polish government. Regulations are issued for the purpose of implementation of acts.

II.A. Unfiar competition
Act on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: Ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji) of 16 April 1993, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 47, item 211, with later amendments.

Article 11
An act of unfair competition is the transfer, disclosure or use of third party information, which is company confidential or their receipt from an unauthorised person, if it threatens or violates the interests of the entrepreneur.
2. The provisions of section 1 shall also apply to the person who has been rendering work based on employment contract or another legal relation, for the period of three years from its expiration, unless the contract stipulates otherwise or there is no longer secrecy.
3. The provisions of section 1 shall not apply to the person who, bona fide, by way of a legal operation against payment, acquired the information constituting a business secrecy. The court may oblige the acquirer to the appropriate remuneration for its use, nevertheless for a period not longer than duration of secrecy.
4. Company confidentiality is understood to include the entrepreneur’s technical, technological organisational or other information having commercial value, which is not disclosed to the public to which the entrepreneur has taken the necessary steps to maintain confidentiality.
(…)
Chapter 4
Penal provisions
Article 23.1. Every person, who contrary to her obligation towards the entrepreneur discloses to another person or uses in her own economic activity information which is a business secrecy, shall be liable to the fine, probation or imprisonment up to 2 years, provided it is to the significant detriment of the entrepreneur.
2. The same sanctions shall apply to the person, who having acquired illegally the business secrecy, discloses it to another person or uses in her own economic activity.

It is noteworthy that definition of “company confidentiality” provided in article 11(4) CUC explicitly included “trade secrets” term before amendments in 2002. The CUC protection of “company confidentiality” can be enforced in civil or crminal proceedings. However, regulations afforded in the CUC basically apply only to relations between entrepreneurs (commercial relationships).

II.B. Civil Code
The Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 16, item 93, with later amendments.

Article 72 [1]. § 1. If during the negotiations, a party has provided information as confidential, the other party is required not to disclose and not to transfer of such information to others and not to use such information for its own purposes, unless the parties otherwise agreed.
§ 2 In the event of failure of performance or improper performance of duties as described in § 1, the entitled person may demand from the other party to undo the damages or to return profits received by the other party.

II.C. Criminal Code
The Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments.

Chapter XXXIII. Crimes against protection of information
(…)
Article 267.
§ 1. Whoever, without being authorised to do so, acquires information not destined for him, by opening a sealed letter, or connecting to a wire that transmits information or by breaching electronic, magnetic or other special protection for that information shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.
§ 2. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone, who, in order to acquire information to which he is not authorised to access, installs or uses tapping, visual detection or other special equipment.
§ 3. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone, who imparts to another person the information obtained in the manner specified in § 1 or 2 discloses to another person.
§ 4. The prosecution of the offence specified in § 1 – 3 shall occur on a motion of the injured person.

The mentioned above regulations are the basic. There are some other legal acts that govern specific fields of law. For instance the Act on Acountancy, the Code of Commercial Companies, the Code of Labour, the Act on Banks Law etc.

Unfair commercial practices, case DOK-6/2008

September 4th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In December 2005, the OCCP instituted antitrust proceedings against ZAiKS and the Polish Filmmakers Association (SFP), suspecting that – in order to maximise their profits – these organisations had made an agreement and fixed uniform charges for using audiovisual works and refused to negotiate their rates.

Penalties for a total of more than $ 1.2 million Polish złoty were imposed by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) on The Association of Authors (ZAiKS) and the Polish Filmmakers Association (APF) because of their agreement “to eliminate competition between them”.

UOKiK has found that since 2003, ZAiKS and SFP, seeking to guarantee itself the highest profits, have operated under the unlawful antitrust agreement. SFP and ZAiKS concluded an agreement which established a uniform, rigid rates for the use of audiovisual works (such as DVD movies) and refused to negotiate them – announced Malgorzata Krasnodębska-Tomkiel (the President of the UOKiK) at a press conference in Warsaw.

The decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of 29 August 2008, case file DOK-6/2008 The official press release is available at uokik.gov.pl website, in Polish language.

Unfair competition, case II CR 367/87

January 3rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The French company Interagra, seated in Paris, demanded the cease of use of the same name by an international enterprise established in Poznań by a Dutch citizen. The company was registered in 1983 in the Register of International Companies in Poznań by Barthold Asauerus van Doom, and operated on the whole Polish market. This company has also registered Interagra trade marks R-61166 and R-61280. However, long before these events, the company Interagra SA started its operation in France. Both companies operated in the field of agricultural products and food. The company Interagra from Poznań knew about the existence of the French one, because Interagra SA had established commercial links with Polish foreign trade centrals (entities that were allowed to cooperate with foreign businesses during the communism era in Poland).

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 June 1988 case file II CR 367/87 held that in case of marking/designating of the undertaking in a way which may mislead customers in relation to its identity, any act that infringes or violates the rules of fair competition exhausts the conditions set out in Article 2 of the Act of 1926 on combating unfair competition, which is also valid for the provision of the Article 5 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 subsequent amendments.

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.

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.

Internet domains and trade mark law, case I ACa 1228/05

June 14th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Poznań in its judgment of 26 April 2006, case file I ACa 1228/05, published in electronic database LEX no. 214296, ruled that in the case of a trade mark in the form of a particular word, the word representing a sign it is important, so long as it has the distinctive character and it is possible to distinguish the goods supplied or manufactured by a company from the products of another company. The appearance of a sign that may be represented by letters written in different fonts was less important in the described case. The conclusion that the only the graphic/figurative similarity between the two marks would give a plaintiff the right to assert claims arising out from article 296 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 later amendments, would render the protection resulting from this provision purely illusory and would wreck the sense of norms arising from this article.

Article 296
1. Any person whose right of protection for a trademark has been infringed or any person who is permitted by law to do so, may demand the infringing party to cease the infringement, to surrender the unlawfully obtained profits and in case of infringement caused by fault also to redress the damage:
(i) in accordance with the general principles of law,
(ii) by the payment of a sum of money at the amount corresponding to the license fee or of other reasonable compensation, which while being vindicated would have been due on account of consent given by the holder to exploit his trademark.

1a. To the claims referred to in paragraph (1) the provisions of Article 287(2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.

2. Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(i) a trademark identical to a trademark registered in respect of identical goods,
(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;
(iii) a trademark identical or similar to a renown trademark 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 trademark.

3. The claims referred to in paragraph (1) shall also be enforceable against a person who only puts on the market the goods already bearing that trademark, provided that the goods do not originate from the right holder or from a party authorised by him to use the trademark.

4. When invoking the right of protection conferred by his trademark, the licensor may enforce the claims referred to in paragraph (1) against a licensee who breaches any provision in his licensing contract with regard to its duration and territory covered by the contract, the form covered by the contract in which the trademark may be used, as well as the scope of the goods for which the trademark may be used or the quality of the goods. This shall apply accordingly to the sub-license.

5. A holder of a right of protection for a trademark may enforce the claims referred to in paragraph (1) against a licensee or a sub-licensee in case where the provisions of the sub-license contract, referred to in paragraph (4) have been breached, as well as in the case, where the contract has been concluded in breach of Article 163(2).

The Court also held that the registration of a web site under a given domain name address, and conducting a business activity through, and also its advertising, complete the condition of “trade mark use”.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Unfair competition case, V CSK 311/06

May 11th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 2 January 2007, case file V CSK 311/06, held that it is contrary to good customs/practice to introduce into the market of a product that is generically equivalent to existing one produced by another manufacturer, if the attraction of the attention of customers was caused by the similarity of the packages that created positive associations in the minds of customers’ of the product previously introduced.

Consumer protection, case III SZP 3/06

August 8th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 13 July 2006, case file III SZP 3/06, ruled that the application of standardized agreements which provisions are identical with the provisions deemed as prohibited contractual provisions (abusive clauses) by the District Court in Warsaw, the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection, and were entered in the register kept by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, may be considered in relation to another undertaking as the practice detrimental to/infinging on the collective interests of consumers.

Unfair competition, case II CKN 70/96

January 20th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court Civil Chamber in a judgment of 7 March 1997, case file II CKN 70/96, gave the interpretation on the priority of use of the designation of the undertaking as defined in article 5 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 5.
The designation of the undertaking in a way which may mislead customers in relation to its identity, due to the use of trade mark, name, emblem, letter abbreviation or another characteristic symbol already lawfully used to indicate another undertaking, shall be the act of unfair competition.

The Court ruled that the priority of use – in accordance with the law – the name of the undertaking, is the only criterion for resolving conflicts between the designations, on the basis of the provisions of article 5 of the CUC.

Categories: Art. 5 CUC | Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition | Polish Supreme Court | unfair competition delict | unfair competition law.

Trade mark law, case V CK 280/04

November 23rd, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 17 June 2004 case file V CK 280/04 held that the owner of rights listed in Article 8(2) of the TMA can claim, with reference to the normative basis of these rights, for their protection, to prohibit the activities covered by the exclusive right, arising from the decision to register a trade mark, which violate these laws, without first having to invalidate the registration of the trade mark.

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;

The Court ruled that legal protection resulting from registration of the trade mark is only formal and does not constitute an obstacle to a prohibition of infringement of rights of a particular entity. The court is not bound by a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the registration of the trade mark when it comes to assessing the facts underlying the judgment that was rendered in civil proceedings.

Unfair competition, case I ACa 900/99

September 11th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Katowice in its judgment of 29 March 2000 case file I ACa 900/99, interpreted provisions of article 13 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 13.
1. Imitating a finished product by way of technical means of reproduction, to copy an external image of such product where it may mislead customers as to the identity of the producer or product, shall be the act of unfair competition.
2. Imitating functional features of a product, in particular its make, structure and form ensuring its usefulness shall not be deemed the act of unfair competition. Where the imitation of functional features of a finished product requires including its characteristic form, which may mislead customers as to the producer or product identity, the imitator is under obligation to adequately mark the product.

The Court held that according to the intention of the legislator, the delicts/torts defined in article 13 of the CUC concern not imitation, in general, but only the so-called “slavish imitation” (also referred to as look-alikes, knock-offs or parasitic copying), which is based on copying the external appearance of a product by technical means of reproduction and it creates the likelihood of customer confusion as to the identity of the manufacturer or a product.

Press law, case I CKN 540/00

August 29th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in the order of 5 March 2002, case file I CKN 540/00 held that provisions 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, shall not apply in proceedings for registration of newspapers and magazines. The institution of registration of press titles was introduced to prevent the existence of identical or concurrent titles on the press market only.

Database protection, case II CK 174/02

August 17th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 7 January 2004 case file II CK 174/02 held that the acquisition of an electronic database and selling it to customers under a different name is deemed as an act of unfair competition, as defined in Articles 3 and 13 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 subsequent amendments.

Article 3
1. The act of unfair competition shall be the activity contrary to the law or good practices which threatens or infringes the interest of another entrepreneur or customer.
2. The acts of unfair competition shall be in particular: misleading designation of the company, false or deceitful indication of the geographical origin of products or services, misleading indication of products or services, infringement of the business secrecy, inducing to dissolve or to not execute the agreement, imitating products, slandering or dishonest praise, impeding access to the market and unfair or prohibited advertising and organising a system of pyramid selling.

Article 13
1. Imitating a finished product by way of technical means of reproduction, to copy an external image of such product where it may mislead customers as to the identity of the producer or product, shall be the act of unfair competition.
2. Imitating functional features of a product, in particular its make, structure and form ensuring its usefulness shall not be deemed the act of unfair competition. Where the imitation of functional features of a finished product requires including its characteristic form, which may mislead customers as to the producer or product identity, the imitator is under obligation to adequately mark the product.

In 2001, the Republic of Poland has introduced to its legal system the Act on Protection of Databases – APD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie baz danych) of 27 July 2001, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 128, item 1402 with subsequent amendments.

Unfair competition, case III CZP 12/95

August 17th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its resolution of 25 February 1995 case file III CZP 12/95 held that the action of a broadcaster of TV or radio shows can be considered as the act of unfair competition if it meets the conditions laid down in article 3 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 subsequent amendments.

Article 3
1. The act of unfair competition shall be the activity contrary to the law or good practices which threatens or infringes the interest of another entrepreneur or customer.

The Court held that imitation of a radio programme may constitute the act of unfair competition under the above mentioned general clause. Such activities, contrary to the law or good practices can be deemed as the unnamed delict/tort if other conditions are also met, i.e. there is a threat or infringement of the interest of another entrepreneur or customer.

Unfair competition, case I ACa 147/99

August 10th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Lublin in a judgment of 27 May 1999, case file I ACa 147/99 ruled that the term “competitive activity” shall mean all actions taken in connection with participation in the market gambling, consisting in achieving maximum benefit from the sale of goods. The court also clarified the provisions of Article 13 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 13.
1. Imitating a finished product by way of technical means of reproduction, to copy an external image of such product where it may mislead customers as to the identity of the producer or product, shall be the act of unfair competition.
2. Imitating functional features of a product, in particular its make, structure and form ensuring its usefulness shall not be deemed the act of unfair competition. Where the imitation of functional features of a finished product requires including its characteristic form, which may mislead customers as to the producer or product identity, the imitator is under obligation to adequately mark the product.

The Court held that according to article 13 of the CUC, it is the important, that the copied outer form of the product creates the likelihood of customer confusion as to the identity of the manufacturer or a product. This situation appears only when the product becomes a commodity, that goes on the market and it’s exposed for sale to buyers.

Trade mark law, case III CK 410/03

February 5th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 27 October 2004 case file III CK 410/03 held that the use of someone else’s trademark for information purposes and in advertising is allowed, if it does not mislead as to the existence of economic links between the trade mark owner and the person that uses such trade mark.

Unfair competition, case II CKN 578/99

January 10th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 11 October 2001, case file II CKN 578/99, ruled that the act of unfair competition in the form of unauthorized imitation of packaging of another company and the act of selling products in such packaging may justify the tortious (delict) liability for damage in the form of lucrum cessans (profits given up) if between the unauthorized imitation and the damage exists a normal causal link/nexus. The case was decided based on article 10(1) of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with later amendments.

Article 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.