Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Polish Act on Electronic Signature

E-access to public information, case II SAB/Wa 86/07

February 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 10 December 2007, case file II SAB/Wa 86/07, held that the request filed in the electronic form (e-mail) that was not signed with the qualified electronic signature is a legally sufficient request for disclosure of public information. Furthermore, the request for disclosure of public information does not initiate the administrative proceedings and it is not intended to finalize the proceedings with the refusal. It is logical and obvious that applicant’s intention is to obtain information and not to receive a negative decision. The request for public information can take any form, unless it is sufficiently clear what is requested.

E-signatures in Poland

January 29th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Current Polish legislation on e-signature include the Act of 18 September 2001 on Electronic Signature – ESA – (in Polish: ustawa o podpisie elektronicznym) Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 15 November 2001, No 130, item 1450, with later amendments. The ESA introduced in article 3 two types of e-signature: “electronic signature”, which means data in electronic form which, together with other data, either attached thereto or logically associated therewith, are capable of identifying the signatory and the so-called “secure electronic signature”, which means electronic signature which is uniquely assigned to the signatory, is made using secure signature-creation device and signature-creation data that the signatory can maintain under his sole control, is related to the data to which it has been attached in such a manner that any subsequent change of the data is recognizable.

According to article 5 of the ESA, the data in electronic form bearing a secure electronic signature verified by a valid qualified certificate shall be legally recognized as equivalent to documents bearing handwritten signatures. A secure electronic signature verified by a valid qualified certificate shall ensure the integrity of the data bearing the signature and unambiguous indication of the qualified certificate by assuring that any subsequent changes of the data and any subsequent changes of the indication of the certificate used to verify the signature are recognizable.

Recently, the Polish Ministry of Economy proposed amendments to the ESA. The draft provides new types of e-signatures that are consistent with the Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signature.

The draft provides 4 types of e-signature: normal, advanced, personal and certified. The normal one will be the same features as present “electronic signature” as defined in article 3 of the ASA and will primarily serve as a declaration of identity.

The advanced e-signature will have to meet the additional requirements for certification of the person using it. It will certify the data integrity and allow you to establish the identity of the signatory to both individuals and legal persons, such as when submitting electronic invoices.

The data in electronic form signed by a qualified (secure) electronic signature will have specific legal effects – the same as a handwritten signature for the data recorded on paper. Such data will be admissible as evidence in legal proceedings. The signature will be used to sign statements of knowledge and will.

Polish case law on e-access to public information

January 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Below, you will find a list of judgments on e-access to public information. By “e-access to public information” I mean all issues related to obtaining public information through or with the help of IT technology. You can find a more detailed discussion on each judgment under the link provided with the case file. All judgments are given in chronological order.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gliwice of 19 September 2011 case file IV SA/Gl 1002/11.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gliwice of 2 August 2011, case file II SAB/Wa 86/07.

- The judgment of the Regional Court Katowice Wchód in Katowice of 27 April 2010, case file I C 19/10.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Szczecin of 16 December 2009, case file II SAB/Sz 148/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, case file II SAB/Wa 57/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 10 December 2007, case file II SAB/Wa 86/07.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 424/06

May 10th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 28 February 2005, the PPO issued a positive decision and registered the word-figurative trade mark METAL-CHEM R-162449 in Class 6 for goods such as steel, in Class 7 for goods such as machinery and equipment for special treatment, technological lines for waste treatment as well as the teams line and accessories, machinery and equipment for the production of cobblestones, bricks and masonry, welders for pipes, in class 11 for electric heaters and in Class 40 for production of special machines, mechanical and thermal processing, casting of non-ferrous metal. It was applied for on 24 September 2001 by the Polish company Zaklad Urzadzen Metalowych “METAL-CHEM” Sp. j. A. Pochec, L. Szymanski, M. Aplas from Rudki.

R-162449

Another Polish company, Instytut Inzynierii Materialów Polimerowych i Barwników (the Institute for Engineering of Polymer Materials and Dies), from Torun filed a request to invalidate the right of protection. The request was based on the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), 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 129(1)(i)
Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs which:
(ii) are devoid of sufficient distinctive character.

Article 131(1)(i)
Rights of protection shall not be granted for signs:
(i) whose use infringes third parties’ personal or economic rights,

Article 132(2)(i) and (iii),
A right of protection for a trade mark shall not be granted, if the trade mark:
(i) is identical to a trade mark registered or applied for registration with an earlier priority date (provided that the latter is subsequently registered) on behalf of another party for identical goods,
(iii) is identical or similar to a renowned trade mark registered or applied for registration with an earlier priority (provided that the latter is subsequently registered) on behalf of another party for any kind of goods, if it without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the applicant or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. The above provision shall apply to well-known trade marks accordingly.

The company from Toruń presented its trade mark METALCHEM R-51184 registered with an earlier priority on 12 April 1973. This trade mark was applied for on 15 May 1972, for goods in Class 6, 7, 9, 20 such as worm pumps, pumps, vertical and horizontal rotational pumps for aggressive liquids, valves, clamps, agitators, mixers, pressure-type apparatus made of stainless steel and carbon steel, containers for transporting granular substances, containers and tanks of plastics.

The PPO has invalidated METAL-CHEM trade mark in its decision of 29 January 2009 case act signature Sp. 424/06. The Adjudicative Board of the PPO has taken into account only arguments based on article 132(2)(ii) of the IPL. The board acknowledged that METALCHEM trade mark has distinctive character and is successfully used at the market. As regards arguments based on article 132(2)(i) the Board held that both signs are identical, the separate spelling is not a significant argument and the goods are similar and complementary. The reputation has not been proven by the company from Toruń so the motion based on article 132(2)(iii) of the IPL was rejected. The decision is not final.