<?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. 107 §3 APC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-administrative-proceedings-code/art-107-%c2%a73-apc/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 16:38:45 +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>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 611/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/04/30/8050/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/04/30/8050/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(3) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 132(4) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 2 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 6 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal rights or interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press title]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of goods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=8050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish Patent Office partially refused to grant the right of protection for the word-figurative trade mark moja historia Z-338905. This sign was applied for PHOENIX PRESS Sp. z o.o. Sp.k. from Wrocław for goods and services in Class 09, 16, 35, 39, 41 and 42. The PPO based its refusal in Class 09, 16 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/04/30/8050/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1242/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/03/26/7675/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/03/26/7675/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:21:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[3D trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquired distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></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. 145 PBAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[famous trade marks]]></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 courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product packaging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reputed trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secondary meaning]]></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=7675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 23 March 2008, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for the word-figurative 3D trade mark PŁ 1764 R-205770, that was applied for by the Polish company Fabryka Wódek POLMOS ŁAŃCUT S.A, for goods in Class 33 such as vodka. The trade mark represents a glass bottle with a blade of grass [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/03/26/7675/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 72/11</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/29/5772/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/29/5772/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §1 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 130 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Administrative Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 25 May 2006, the Polish company AERECO Wentylacja Sp. z o.o. applied for the word-figurative trade mark HIGROSTEROWANIE Z-311192 for goods in Classes 07, 09, 11 and 35. The Polish Patent Office refused to grant the right of protection, claiming that the applied sign does not have sufficient level of distinctive character. The PPO [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/29/5772/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case II GSK 1033/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/22/7548/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/22/7548/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[absolute grounds for refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquired distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 130 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[descriptive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generic sign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal rights or interests]]></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 law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Patent Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press title]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secondary meaning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=7548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is another part of the saga of trade marks consisting of numerals. On March 2003, Agencja Wydawnicza TECHNOPOL Spółka z o.o. applied for the word trade mark 100 PANORAMICZNYCH Z-261876 for goods in Class 16 such as newspapers, charade magazines, booklets, brochures, flyers, calendars, posters, exercise books. The Polish Patent Office decided that it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2012/02/22/7548/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>
	</channel>
</rss>

