<?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. 169(1)(i) IPL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-industrial-property-law/art-1691i-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 II GSK 839/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/17/7463/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/17/7463/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 154 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(2) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(6) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 170 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicinal product]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of goods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark lapse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nufarm Australia Limited, the owner of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY R-164428 registered for goods in Class 5, requested the Polish Patent Office to decide on the lapse of the right of protection for DUAL IR-0534713 owned by Syngenta Participations AG. Earlier before, Syngenta opposed the registratin of the trade mark DUAL SALT TECHNOLOGY [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/01/17/7463/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 538/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/09/6858/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/09/6858/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[3D trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §1 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 145 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 156 §1 pt 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directive 98/71/EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-traditional trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product packaging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark lapse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the continuation of the story described in &#8220;Trade mark law, case Sp. 457/08&#8220;. Unilever filed a complaint against the decision of the Polish Patent Office in which the PPO decided on the lapse of the right or protection of 3D trade mark R-134678 because of its non-use in the form in which the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/07/09/6858/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case Sp. 457/08</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/02/21/6500/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/02/21/6500/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:03:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[3D trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genuine use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-traditional trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product packaging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark lapse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6500</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish Patent Office invalidated the registration of the industrial design &#8220;bottle with cap&#8221; Rp-2543 owned by Zakład Produkcj Opakowań Rosiński i S-ka sp.j. The request for invalidation was filed by Unilever, which claimed that the design infringes on its 3D trade mark R-134678. This 3D trade mark has the form of a bottle for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/02/21/6500/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 1088/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/02/19/6490/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/02/19/6490/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:24:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(2) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 184 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark lapse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark use]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Polish company Śnieżka Invest sp. z o. o. from Świebodzice requested the Polish Patent Office to decided on the lapse of the right of protection for the trademark GOPLANA MICHAŁKI R-139668 owned by Jutrzenka S.A. Śnieżka claimed that the questioned trade was not genuinely used in the period of five successive years after a decision [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/02/19/6490/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 452/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/19/5017/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/19/5017/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:19:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 168 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(1)(i) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(2) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 169(6) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 61 §3 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark lapse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5017</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 2009, the Polish Patent Office declared that the right of protection for REAL trademark owned by real SB-Warenhaus GmbH from Germany, lapsed partially. The German company requested for the suspension of the contested decision. The request stated that the contested decision would cause a negative economic impact for real SB-Warenhaus GmbH, which, through a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/19/5017/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

