In the summer of 2008, a popular Polish tabliod Super Express published a nude picture of Justyna Steczkowska that was taken on a Turkish beach during her holidays. The singer sued the publisher for the violation of privacy rights. The Appellate Court in Warsaw in a judgment of 24 February 2010, case file ACa 1176/09, awarded Justyna Steczkowska 80000 PLN compensation and ordered Super Express to publish an apology. The court held that there is no implied consent to the intrusion into privacy, even though it was the hotel’s private beach and a photographed person wasn’t too cautious.
Archive for: Polish Civil Code
Poland: football fans play with lawyers
February 14th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiAs polite fans would probably say, the condition of Polish football is at least “debatable”, and others might use more crude words. The corruption and inefficient management of the Polish national football leagues are the tip of the Iceberg. This situation causes frustration of many people who try to blame the Polish Football Association (PZPN) for all their miseries. Some of these people decided to take matters into their own hands. They formed the Association of Defenders and Supporters of the Polish Football. They registered koniecpzpn.pl (end of Polish Football Association) as an Internet domain name and started to host a website with critical publications on PZPN under that domain. One didn’t need to wait too long before lawyers representing the Polish Football Association entered “the game”. New players acting on behalf of the Polish Football Association requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction in order to secure the case for the future action for trade mark protection and for the protection of personal rights.
The District Court in Lódż, I Civil Division, in its order of 14 January 2010, case file Ico 203/09, decided to grant the injunction and ordered the prohibition of placing at koniecpzpn.pl website the following trade marks owned by the PZPN: R-142616, R-170024, R-188961 i R-188962, the Court also ordered a block on the access to the content of the website available under www.koniecpzpn.pl domain name. The Court set the PZPN a two-week deadline for lodging the petition instituting proceedings for trade mark protection and the protection of personal rights under the pain of withdrawing the injunction in case no lawsuit was filed by that date.
See also my post entitled “Polish case law on domain names“.
Who is an Internet troll?
February 9th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiSince a couple of years he is a very controversial figure of the Polish Internet and he also has become the cause of two interesting judgments which I am going to report. Arnold Buzdygan appeared on different Polish newsgroups, where he wrotre, inter alia, on topics such as copyright, sexology, psychology and politics. His style of writing was, at least, very controversial. Due to the vulgarity of some of his statements (he claimed that such actions were performed by his followers who allegedly used his name), offers to make a bet and announcements of lawsuits and threats of beatings, a part of the Usenet community defined these behaviors as trolling and such informations was posted in the Polish Wikipedia’s entry devoted to Buzdygan’s persona. Arnold Buzdygan decided to sue.
In the petition for libel filed against the Association Wikimedia Poland and Agnieszka K., he demanded an order to remove the existing contents of the article Arnold Buzdygan in both English and Polish-language versions of Wikipedia, and to put the apology instead of these entries, and to block the possibility of future edition of the questioned article, He also requested the Court to order the Association Wikimedia Poland to pay him the compensation of moral injury and the costs of the process in the sum of 100000 PLN.
In the response to a petition, the Association of Wikimedia Poland requested the Court to dismiss the claim, pointing that such charges cannot be brought against it because of the lack of the so-called “passive legitimacy”. Wikimedia Poland stated that neither the Association itself, or persons acting on its behalf are not engaged in editing of the article on Arnold Buzdygan, Wikimedia Poland argued that it is not a database administrator of Wikipedia or administrator of the servers on which the information is stored, so it would not be possible to remove or permanent blocking of such entries.
The District Court in Wrocław dismissed the suit in judgment of 8 June 2009, case file I C 802/07. Buzdygan appealed, and his petition was rejected by the Appellate Court in Wrocław in a judgment of 17 November 2009, case file I ACa 949/09, published in Orzecznictwo Apelacji Wrocławskiej, Biuletyn Sądu Apelacyjnego we Wrocławiu, No 1 (13), p. 5, Year MMX. The court ruled that the statements published in the disputed article and the mention of trolling do not infringe on Buzdygan’s personal rights. Descriptions of Buzdygan’s activity on different forums, though they may have a pejorative connotation, were the evaluation of the expression of views issued by Arnold Buzdygan, not the description of himself. The wording that was challenged by Buzdygan does not refer to his person, but it concerned the way of formulation of his speech in a public discussion, and the measure of negative evaluation did not exceed the permissible limit.
An active participant of online forums, being a well-known and recognizable in such community is, in this sense, a “public personality”. As a public person, participating in discussions, one agrees and must reckon with the fact that his or her opinions and statements will be subjected to criticism by other users, sometimes very radically and one has to demonstrate greater tolerance and even resistance to unfavourable and unflattering opinions, and even violent attacks. The boundaries of acceptable criticism are wider in fact, than in the case of persons not participating in such discussions. The evidence proceedings during the hearings has shown that Buzdygan was and is very active participant in online forums, and he is a known figure. By applying the test of the higher degree of tolerance for unflattering opinions, the Court found that the wording of the Wikipedia entry devoted to Arnold Buzdygan did not exceed the agreed and acceptable standard.
See also my post entitled “Polish court rules on the location of the Internet“.
Internet domains, case I ACa 272/06 – domain name IS NOT property under the Polish law
February 8th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Appellate Court in Katowice, in a judgment of 16 June 2006, case file I ACa 272/06, ruled that it is pointless to talk about the “ownership” of Internet domains, because the civil law sets the property rights in article 140 of the Civil Code, which only refers to tangibles, and domains are not such things, and further, due to the closed list of property rights in intangibles (the so-called numerus clasus of IP rights – the principle that the system of estates allows only a limited number of property rights available in a legal system), there are no regulations in the Polish law, which suggests that the effect of registering Internet domain names is, to acquire by the subscriber, the right to use and dispose of the domain. The agreement between the subscriber and the Internet domain registrar is a contract to provide telecommunications services within the meaning of article 1(1) of the Polish Act of 16 July 2000, Telecommunications Law – TLA – (in Polish: Prawo telekomunikacyjne), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 171, item 1800 with later amendments. The subscriber may transfer his or her claims (contractual claims against the registrar) to another entity, if it comes with the assumption of debt from subscriber fees.
I realize that this differs significantly from the US law. Easpecially if you read Kremen v. Cohen, 335 F.3d 1035, (9th Cir. 2003).
The parties do not dispute that domain names are a kind of property. This proposition appears to be consistent with California’s broad definition of “property.” See Cal. Civ.Code §§ 654 & 655(property includes “all inanimate things which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery”). The parties disagree, however, whether a domain name like sex.com is the kind of intangible property that can support a claim for conversion. At issue is whether such intangible property constitutes a sufficiently definite right and whether such intangible property must also be merged into a document or other writing.
Same opinions were issued in Harrods, Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002), Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesars-Palace.Com, 112 F. Supp. 2d 502 (E.D. Va. 2000) or In re Larry Koenig & Assoc., 2004 WL 3244582 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2004). But there are also different judgments such as Dorer v. Arel, 60 F. Supp. 2d 558 (E.D. Va. 1999), Zurakov v. Register.com, Inc., 304 A.D.2d 176, 760 N.Y.S.2d 13 (1st Dep’t 2003), Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro International, Inc., 259 Va. 759, 529 S.E.2d 80 (2000) and the latest I know which is Palacio del Mar Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. McMahon, — Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2009 WL 1668294 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. June 16, 2009). The Court ruled that a domain name registration is not property, but merely supplies the intangible contractual right to use a unique domain name for a specified period of time. Does it sound familiar to you?
See also my post entitled “Polish case law on domain names“.
E-proceedings in Poland
January 18th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiOn 1 January 2010 the provisions of the Act of 9 January 2009, amending the Act – Civil Proceedings Code and other acts, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 26, item 156, came into force. This act introduced articles 50528 – 50537 which added to the CPC, in the First Book – the Trial, the title VII. Separate proceedings, Chapter VIII. Electronic proceedings, Chapter 1 Electronic admonition proceedings. In addition, the series of implementing regulations were published in the Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) on 31 December 2009, No 226. These regulations include inter alia:
- The regulation of the Minister of Justice of 28 December 2009 on the procedure of setting up an account and the way of using of electronic signatures in the electronic admonition proceedings,
- The regulation of the Minister of Justice of 28 December 2009 on the procedure of electronic serving in the electronic admonition proceedings,
- The regulation of the Minister of Justice of 28 December 2009 on the method of electronically lodging of pleadings in the electronic admonition proceedings,
- The regulation of the Minister of Justice of 28 December 2009 on the action of the court relating to the enforceability of a judicial decision rendered in the electronic admonition proceedings.
So, since 1 January 2010, XVI Civil Department of the Regional Court in Lublin is formally and officialy the first Polish e-court.
The electronic admonition proceedings were introduced as a separate proceeding – having the nature of summons for payment – in cases where the facts are not complicated and there is no requirement of the evidence proceedings. The suit in the electronic admonition proceedings may be filed by a natural person or a person acting on behalf of the plaintiff (the agent, legal representative) who also has an account enabled at www.e-sad.gov.pl website and a valid certificate to create the electronic signature. The plaintiff’s pleadings have to be lodged electronically to produce legal effects as provided by the law with regard to pleadings filed in the court.
Electronic versions of the statement of claim and other pleadings may be signed with a qualified certificate issued by a Qualified Certification Center. A person who does not have a valid qualified certificate should request a certificate from the Certification Center EPU and download the certificate, before filing a suit.
The suit should also include plaintiff’s number in the Universal Electronic System for Registration of the Population – PESEL – (in Polish: Powszechny Elektroniczny System Ewidencji Ludności) which is the national identification number used in Poland since 1979 or Tax Identification Number – NIP – (in Polish: Numer Identyfikacji Podatkowej) of the plaintiff other than a natural person, if the plaintiff is obliged to have one, and the number of the National Court Register (in Polish: Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy), or the number in the other appropriate register or other records. This is much stronger requirement when it comes to e-pleadings because such a requirement does not apply to actions brought in writing.
The plaintiff should indicate the evidence to support his/her claims in the petition. The evidence is not attached to the petition.
Court fees in the electronic admonition proceedings are paid only electronically via the payment service provider. Activities during the electronic admonition proceedings may be exercised by court’s referendary (division official).
The ruling issued in the electronic admonition proceedings is deemed as the writ of execution. The enforcement clause is only left in the computer system. After the decision issued during the electronic admonition proceedings becomes final, the enforcement clause is issued ex officio. The plaintiff, or person acting on behalf of the plaintiff, may submit a request for execution of the decision to the selected bailiff through the communications system of the e-court based on the electronic writ of execution received.
Polish regulations on personal data protection
January 11th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiI. The law
I.A. Substantive law
- The Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997.
- The Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of October 29, 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of July 6, 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.
- The Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with later amendments.
I.B. Procedural law
- Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments.
- Act on proceedings before administrative courts – PBAC – (in Polish:Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi) of 30 August 2002, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 153, item 1270, with later amendments.
- Civil Proceedings Code – CPC (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 43, item 296, with later amendments.
I.C. Case law
See the post entitled “Polish case law on personal data protection“.
I.D. EU law
Since 1 May 2004 which was the accession day to the EU, the Republic of Poland has been bound by all aquis communitaire, including judgments of the Court of Justice.
I.E. International law
The Republic of Poland is a party of many International treaties and agreements concerning the protection of personal data.
II. National bodies and procedures
The Inspector General for Personal Data Protection decides cases within its competence under provisions of the Code of Administrative Proceedings, unless provided for otherwise. A party dissatisfied with a decision issued by the GIODO may request for the reconsidering of the case. The decision by the GIODO on the application to reconsider the case may be appealed against with the Voivodeship Administrative Court. The judgment of the VAC may be a subject to a cassation complaint which is decided by the Supreme Administrative Court.
Administrative, civil and criminal proceedings in trade mark cases in Poland
December 22nd, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiI. Sources of Trade mark Law in Poland
The main sources of binding laws in the Republic of Poland are the Constitution of 2 April 1997, acts passed by the Parliament, ratified international treaties and regulations issued, for example, by the Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers – Polish government. Regulations are issued for the purpose of implementation of acts. The main legal acts on trade mark protection in the Republic of Poland are the following.
I.A. Substantive law
- The old Polish Trade Mark Act – TMA – (in Polish: Ustawa o znakach towarowych) of 31 January 1985, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 5, item 15, with later amendments.
- Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.
- Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 47, item 211, with later amendments
I.B. Procedural law
- Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments.
- Act on proceedings before administrative courts – PBAC – (in Polish:Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi) of 30 August 2002, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270, with later amendments.
- Civil Proceedings Code – CPC (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 43, item 296, with later amendments
- Criminal Proceedings Code – CRPC – (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Karnego) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 89, item 555, with later amendments.
- Act on Patent Attorneys – APAT – (in Polish: ustawa o rzecznikach patentowych) of 11 April 2001, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 49, item 509, with subsequent amendments,
I.C. EU law
Since 1 May 2004 which was the accession day to the EU, the Republic of Poland has been bound by all aquis communitaire including the Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR). The CTMR is a part of the Polish Legal system and is directly aplicable by Polish Courts, especially by the Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs which is located in Warsaw (in Polish: Sad Okregowy w Warszawie Wydzial XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych).
II. Different routes, different proceedings
The right of protection for a sign being capable to be registered as a trade mark is granted by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (PPO). Trade mark holders in the Republic of Poland may protect their rights in civil and criminal proceedings. Moreover, they may also use the procedures before customs authorities.
The Republic of Poland is not a common law country and the courts are not bound by decisions of other courts. However Polish judges tend to widely recognise the decisions and verdicts of the Polish Courts of Appeal and the Polish Supreme Court. Only resolutions of the Supreme Court that are decided as a legal principle are universally binding. The decisions of foreign bodies such as the General Court and Court of Justice of EU may be recognised only as so-called persuasive precedents.
II. A. Administrative proceedings in trade mark cases
The Patent Office of the Republic of Poland is a central government agency responsible inter alia for receiving and examination of applications seeking protection for trade marks and deciding in matters related to granting rights of protection trade marks (decisions with regard to processing of national and International trade mark applications, decisions on the invalidation and the lapse of the right of protection for a trade mark etc.). The provisions of the Code of Administrative Proceedings shall apply accordingly to litigation procedure before the Patent Office in cases not regulated by the IPL. Decisions made or orders issued by the PPO are liable to complaint lodged to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. Judgments made by the VAC may be a subject of a cassation complaint filed before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).
II. B. Civil proceedings in trade mark cases
Trade mark infringement actions are brought before a District Court. There are no specific courts which have exclusive jurisdiction for resolving trade mark disputes, except the Court for Community Trade Marks and Community Designs which is strictly focused on the legal issues related to CTMs.
The Law on Industrial Property provides that a trademark owner’s rights will be deemed to have been infringed where there has been unlawful use of the mark in the course of trade, including unauthorized use of a trademark by a licensee and sublicensee. The remedies available to the trademark owner are as follows:
- cessation of the infringement,
- surrender of any unlawfully obtained profits,
- compensatory damages in accordance with the relevant principles of the Civil Code or payment of a lump sum equivalent to a licence fee, or any other remuneration, which would have been due if the infringer had been authorized by the right holder to use the trademark. In this case, the trademark owner is obliged to prove that an intentional infringement of its rights has taken place,
- announcement to the public of a verdict of the court (upon the request of a trade mark owner) as a whole or in part, or publication of information regarding the verdict,
- a court order that the infringer (upon its own request, in case of unintentional infringement) to pay the relevant sum to the benefit of the trade mark owner if the cessation of infringement or forfeiture of the goods held by the infringer (means of manufacturing, materials) would be excessive, and the above-mentioned sum to be paid would fulfil the right holder’s interest.
The following cases, in particular, are also decided in civil law proceedings in accordance with the general principles of law:
- for ascertainment of the authorship of an inventive project,
- for ascertainment of the right to a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration,
- for remuneration for the exploitation of an inventive project,
- for remuneration for the exploitation of an invention, a utility model or a topography for state purposes,
- for compensation for the transfer to the State Treasury of a right to a patent for a secret invention or to a right of protection for a secret utility model, a right of protection or a right in registration,
- for infringement of a patent, a supplementary protection right, a right of protection or a right in registration,
- for ascertainment of the right to exploit an invention, a utility model or an industrial design in the cases referred to in Articles 71 and 75 of the IPL,
- for ascertainment of the right to use, in a local-scale activity, a mark registered on behalf of a third party as a trademark,
- for ascertainment of the right to use a geographical indication,
- for ascertainment of the loss of the right to use a geographical indication,
- for the transfer of a patent, a right of protection for a utility model or a right in registration of an industrial design or a topography obtained by a person not entitled thereto,
- for the transfer of a right of protection for a trad emark in the case referred to in Article 161 of the IPL.
II. C. Criminal proceedings in trade mark cases
The IPL defines counterfeit trademarks as identical trademarks illegally used or trade marks which in the course of trade can not be distinguished from the trade marks registered for the goods covered by the right of protection. The party aggrieved by the infringement has to commence a criminal action. Only after the filing of the motion can the proceedings be started and continued ex officio. The sole exception is when a person committing the crime in respect of a registered trade mark obtains permanent profits from its criminal activity or commits acts resulting in the turnover of counterfeit goods bearing the trade mark, which are of significant value. In such case the infringer is subject to more serious criminal penalties and proceedings will be started ex officio.
II. D. Custom seizures
Customs law, in addition to civil and criminal law, is the third administrative regime of protection for trade mark rights. Provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property are directly aplicable on the territory of the Republic of Poland. The application for action shall be submitted to the Polish Customs Chamber seated at Modlińska 4 Street, 03-216 Warsaw.
II. E. ADR in trade mark cases
Where a domain name including a trade mark has been registered by an unauthorized third party, the mark owner can use mediation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings or civil court action to obtain the cancellation or transfer of such domain. However, following a recent judgement of the Polish Competition and Consumer Protection Court of 26 December 2006, case act signature XVII AmC 170/05, ADR is unlikely to succeed if the disputed domain name is registered in the name of a natural person.
Personal rights, case II CSK 539/07
March 27th, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiQXL Poland sp. z o.o. is the owner of the allegro.pl auction website which removed the user account of a person (Cezary O.) using the nicknames CezCez, 2cez, 2xcez and espia. The company presented different reasons for its decision to remove the account and tried to justify such action by putting various statements about CezCez on its forum website “Cafe Nowe Allegro”. CezCez did not agree with QXL’s statements and sued. The court of first instance agreed with Cezary O.’s arguments and ruled that QXL Poland make a statement of apology as follows
Allegro.pl wishes to apologize to CezCez for using comments by one of its employees which publicly appeared on the New Cafe Allegro on 17 January 2003,– wording that implied CezCez was dishonest, he lies, he is selfish and that he pursues his own self-interest. These actions and comments affected the good name of CezCez, which was not the intention of QXP Poland.
The above statement was to be published on the Allegro.pl website but both parties appealed. The Appellate Court in Lodz did not share the conclusions of the court of first instance that the username (a nickname) used in internet services is personal right/interests (i.e. intangible personal property) eligible for protection under arts 23 and 24 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with later amendments
Article 23
The personal interests of a human being, in particular to health, dignity, freedom, freedom of conscience, surname or pseudonym, image, secrecy of correspondence, inviolability of home, and scientific, artistic, inventor’s and rationalizing achievements, shall be protected by civil law independent of protection envisaged in other provisions.Article 24
§ 1 The person whose personal rights are threatened by someone else’s action, may require the desist of that action, unless it is not illegal. In the event of the infringement one may also require, the person who committed the violation, to fulfill the actions necessary to remove its effects, in particular, to make a statement of the relevant content and appropriate format. According to the conditions laid down in the Code one may also require monetary compensation or payment of an appropriate amount of money for a social purpose indicated.
§ 2 If as the result of a breach of personal rights one has suffered pecuniary prejudice, the aggrieved person may claim compensation based on general principles.
§ 3 The above shall not prejudice the entitlements provided by other regulations, in particular in copyright law and the patent (invention) law.
The Appellate Court did not agree with the arguments that the user name (a nickname) has parallels with a pseudonym. The case went to the highest court in a further appeal as a cassation complaint. The Supreme Court of Republic of Poland in a judgment of 11 MArch 2008, case file II CSK 539/07, dismissed the case for procedural reasons. However, the SC did not agree with conclusion of the Appellate Court with regard to protection of nicknames or usernames in the digital environment.
The court noted that a username fulfils a variety of functions. First, the creation of a username is a prerequisite to registering on the allegro.pl website in order to obtain its own account and so participate in auctions. A person using such a nickname may be a buyer or a seller. Secondly, a username allows a person to log into Allegro.pl website. In the process of logging in, the user is given a pair of identifiers, such as a username and password. Thirdly, the username/nickname identifies the individual in question in the online environment, in this particular case, in the environment of people using Allegro.pl services.
The individual is therefore recognised as a user using a specific nickname. The Supreme Court could not agree with the position of Court of Appeal that the nickname is purely a technical issue used to personalise the operation. On the contrary it argued, the username/nickname defines and characterises the person who uses such an auction site, bids on it, is the party to a contract of sale, issues comments or is involved in correspondence with other users.
The court found that
In some cases, participations in the auction website by a user using a specific name can be a source of information for other participants who know that this user typically takes part in an auction of that type, bids only to a certain amount of money, only on certain days, in a certain way, does not compete with users using specific names, that the user is honest, efficient and immediately carries out transactions, etc.”
The Supreme Court also ruled that a username identifies a specific natural person. A username consists of a series of signs and letters, and there are no counter-indications that a person who created his or her own username could use his or her own name, surname, artistic pseudonym, pen name, or alias or it could even be a natural person who is the agent and uses the company name (the firm) under which it operates its business.
It appeared to the court that in the assumption of a username by a person rather than his or her own name, the pseudonym (which has so far been used as an example in artistic activities) is meant as the assumption of a nickname in order to allow for individualisation of that particular person. The word “nickname” comes from the Greek language (“pseudonymos”–bearing a false name, falsely named) and it means a first name, last name or another name which someone uses to conceal his real name or surname.
The court found irrelevant the motivation of a person who takes a nickname which is used as a pseudonym only in the “internet environment” or that the nickname may only be associated with the activities of that particular person carried out within the scope of services offered by Allegro.pl, since it may also have a broader meaning and go beyond the services of Allegro.pl. Consequently, the court noted that a username is subject to legal protection on the same basis on which protection is granted for any name, pseudonym or firm name, under which a person has established its business (whether it is a company name or that of a private person). At the same time, the court found no reason to treat a username/nickname as a separate personal right.
Personal rights, case III CZP 17/86
February 25th, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiThe Supreme Court in a judgment of 10 November 1986, case file III CZP 17/86, published in OSNCP 1987, No. 10, item 145, ruled that the circumstances excluding the unlawfulness of an infringement of personal rights/interests include: the exercise of personal rights, the consent of a harmed person. It should be noted, however, that the consent as a condition repealing the illegality, applies if its expression does not affect either existing legislation or the rules of the application of a consent.
Personal rights, case II CR 419/89
January 25th, 2009, Tomasz RychlickiThe Supreme Court in a judgment of 19 October 1989, case file III CR 419/89, published in OSP 1990, book 11-12, p. 377, ruled that the circumstances excluding the unlawfulness of an infringement of personal rights/interests include inter alia actions that are allowed under the law, i.e. an action that is permitted by an applicable legal regulation and an action taken in the defense of a legitimate interest.