<?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; Art. 117 IPL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-industrial-property-law/art-117-ipl/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>Wed, 23 May 2012 10:32:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Industrial design law, case II GSK 932/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/01/10/6363/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/01/10/6363/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appearance of the whole or a part of a product]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 102 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 103 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 103(3)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 104 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 108 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 117 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual character of a design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6363</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 October 2010 case file II GSK 932/09 held that an industrial design concerns the form of a product, i.e. external characteristics that are observable, and individual appearances of a product cannot be claimed only because the material which was used to achieve the final effect (that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/01/10/6363/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 852/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/11/23/6161/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/11/23/6161/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:56:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 102 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 103 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 104 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 117 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual character of a design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[informed user]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invalidation of a right in registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 852/10 held that an industrial design has individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression caused by the design that was publicly available before the date according to which [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/11/23/6161/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 1764/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/09/28/5460/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/09/28/5460/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:31:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 117 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 20 Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 22 Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invalidation of a right in registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 December 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1764/09 held that the examination of all of the evidence should include all evidence taken in the proceedings, as well as taking into account all the circumstances surrounding an individual evidence and relevant to assess their strength and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/09/28/5460/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 504/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/08/24/5050/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/08/24/5050/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 102 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 103 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 103(3)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 104 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 117 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[informed user]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invalidation of a right in registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[novelty of an industrial design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 504/10 held that the scope of creative freedom is determined by the functional features of the object and the previous designs. In case of designs that must meet particular functional requirements, the scope of creative freedom is smaller [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/08/24/5050/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Industrial design and trade mark law, case II GSK 481/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/14/4086/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/14/4086/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:05:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 117 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directive 98/71/EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invalidation of a right in registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[novelty of an industrial design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal rights or interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the continuation of the history described in &#8220;Industrial design and trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 710/08&#8220;. Rosinski Andrzej Rosinski Michal Rosinska Joanna Zaklad Produkcji Opakowan Rosinski i S-ka, Sp. J. decided to file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court, hoping the Court would clarify the interpretation of article 117(2) of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/14/4086/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

