<?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. 131(2)(i) IPL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-industrial-property-law/art-1312i-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>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 VI SA/Wa 574/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/08/23/5038/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/08/23/5038/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 10bis Paris Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8 Paris Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 9 Paris Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paris Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5038</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 574/10 ruled that Article 8 of the Paris Convention is a &#8220;conflicting norm&#8221; i.e. a norm/rule in private international law that points to appropriate substantive law that should be applied in a given case. The &#8220;trade name&#8221; on the basis [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/08/23/5038/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case Sp. 334/05</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/30/378/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/30/378/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8(1) TMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absolute grounds for refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=378</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 1 March 2004, the Polish Patent Office registered word-figurative trade mark CZUWAJ R-152214 (in English: &#8220;Be Prepared&#8221;). Związek Harcerstwa Polskiego &#8211; Główna Kwatera is the owner. The sign looks exactly the same as the Scouts Cross. The final design of Scout&#8217;s Crass was approved during ZHP&#8217;s unification conference held on October 1-2 1918 which [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/30/378/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2013/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/06/23/4203/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/06/23/4203/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 246 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class46 post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[famous trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reputed trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 April 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 2013/09, held that the reputation is not a simple consequence of circulation of a trade mark on the market. The renown trade mark is one that has its own reputation, and so in addition to its recognition it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/06/23/4203/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 425/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/05/07/3771/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/05/07/3771/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 19:20:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 16(1) TRIPS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 234 CPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 6septies Paris Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 CC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8 Paris Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class46 post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paris Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Civil Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Civil Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=3771</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 30 August 2004, the Polish Patent Office registered word-figurative trade mark Ravago R-154724 to Walter Breitengraser. The Polish company RESINEX Sp. z.o.o. submitted a request for invalidation of the right of protection, arguing that Mr Breitengraser has applied for the registration in violation of RESINEX personal and economic rights arising from the rights to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/05/07/3771/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 335/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/03/24/3494/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/03/24/3494/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:15:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 123 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 142 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class46 post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal interest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=3494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 4 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1529/08 rejected the complaint brought by Fashion Group Sp. z o.o. against the decision of the Polish Patent Office (PPO) of 2008, case no. Sp. 504/06, on the discontuance of proceedings in case of the invalidation of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/03/24/3494/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
