<?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. 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>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:02:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case Sp. 500/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/30/7535/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/30/7535/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<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. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On July 2008, Barbara Hildman requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the right of protection of the word-figurative trade mark BIKINI CHRISTIAN DIOR PARIS R-175224 owned by Parfums Christian Dior from Paris, and registered for goods in Class 03 such as body and face care products. Barbara Hildman argued that BIKINI CHRISTIAN DIOR PARIS [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/30/7535/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 617/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/10/24/7098/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/10/24/7098/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:12:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal rights or interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[well known trade marks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7098</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 17 October 2007, the Polish Patent Office registered the word trade mark Auto-dap R-197829 for Dariusz Chudobiński from Łódź. Andrzej Teodorczyk who owns Auto Serwis Dap, that is located in Pabianice town, filed a notice of opposition. Mr Teodorczyk claimed that Mr Chudobiński acted in bad faith. He also noted that the sign in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/10/24/7098/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tax law, case I SA/Po 210/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/09/26/7328/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/09/26/7328/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 120(1) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(1)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(3) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(4) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(1)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(iii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(3) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(4) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 145 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 153 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 16(1) LEIT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 6(1) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Legal Persons Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark depreciation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Poznań in its judgment of 28 Jue 2011 case file I SA/Po 210/11 held that a subsidiary company is allowed to depreciate trade marks that were transferred to it as an apportionment, starting from the first day of a month, after one month the Polish Patent Office has granted the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/09/26/7328/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 112/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/07/6842/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/07/6842/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<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. 145 §1 pt 4 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 166 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[famous trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6842</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sfinks Polska S.A. from Łódź requested the Polish Patent Office to invalidate the rights of protection for word-figurative trade marks CLEOPATRA R-153234 and R-179260 owned by Restauracja CLEOPATRA Bachar Aziz from Lublin. Sfinks Polska is the owner of the earlier registered word-figurative trade mark SPHINX R-105162. Sfinks claimed that the trade mark CLEOPATRA R-153234 is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/07/6842/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 86/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/05/10/6661/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/05/10/6661/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 13:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 131(2)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[descriptive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish Patent Office dismissed the request for the invalidation of the word trade mark Laurina R-186513 registered in Class 31 for goods such as seeds of dwarf yellow pod common bean, fresh dwarf bean, yellow pod bean. The applicant filed a complaint against this decision. The applicant argued that the mark does not have [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/05/10/6661/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

