The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 15 July 2010 case file I ACa 1402/09 held that even if a website only republishes articles or summaries of works published in major periodicals, it is not absolved from responsibility for infrigement of personal right/interests of a person who was described in such an article.
Archive for: Art. 23 CC
Personal rights, case I ACa 1402/09
July 16th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiPersonal rights, case VI Aca 1460/09
July 12th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiMałgorzata F. sued a residential community and the advertising company for infringement of her personal rights that according to Małgorzata F. occured by placing on the building in which she lives a big banner advertising, which concealed all windows of her apartment. The plaintiff did not ask for financial compensation but only for the apology to be published in the media.
The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 9 July 2010 case file VI Aca 1460/09 held that such advertising does not constitute an infringement of personal rights, in particular immunity of residence, because it rather concerned the so-called domestic peace (mir domowy). The court suggested that the right way for such disputes is to challenge the resolutions of the community or to base a lawsuit on the rules on the protection of property, and not the path of protection of personal rights.
See also “Poland: reclaim the windows – the saga continues“.
Trade mark law, case IX GC 104/06
July 5th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiIn 2003, Polish company Zakłady Tytoniowe Lublin started to produce “Full Flavor ZTL Mont Blanc” and “Light ZTL Mont Blanc” cigarettes. Te tanie papierosy miały być konkurencją dla przemycanych z Ukrainy papierosów Monte Carlo. These latter cheap cigarettes were meant to be competition for Monte Carlo cigarettes smuggled from Ukraine.
German company Montblanc – Simplo sued Polish company for infringement of Montblanc trade marks’ reputation, unfair competition delict and infringement of personal rights/interest. Montblanc – Simplo demanded the cessation of production of these cigarettes and the publication of a statment on illegal use of the trade mark, in nationwide newspapers.
The District Court in Lublin in its judgment case file IX GC 104/06 dismissed these claims. The court held that that the contested name is written on cigarette packs separately (as the name of a mountain peak) and in a figurative aspect it has a different color, font and background. Therefore it cannot mislead consumers, what is more important, these are goods of various kinds. The expert in the field of commodities found that use of the trade mark for cheap cigarettes has no effect on the reputation of Montblanc sign and there is no percolation of the two groups of consumer of both products. Also an expert in the field of social psychology, did not reveal blurring of Montblanc reputation by the use of the geographical name “Mont Blanc” on the cheap cigarettes.
Personal rights, case I A CZ 296/10
June 5th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiOn 18 January 2010, Michał Okonek, the owner of MAP1 company, filed a petition to the court with a request to order ParaRent.com Wawrzyniak Sp. j. company seated in Szczecin, to block access to the thread entitled “a suit for the use of a part of a map” which is available at www.forumprawne.org website (http://forumprawne.org/prawo-autorskie/501-pozew-za-wykorzystanie-fragmentu-mapy.html) operated by ParaRent.com. Mr Okonek also requested the court to prohibit ParaRent.com to publish of new content concerning Michał Okonek at foras available at www.forumprawne.org website.
Mr Okonek pointed out that ParaRent.com allows its users for posting and sharing information that unjustly accuse him of extorting money, making false statements, misleading the courts and prosecution, intimidation of Internet users, even for distributing of pornography. Moreover, users of forumprawne.org called Mr Okonek as the swindler and the parasite, while he only uses the right to sublicense the use of copyrighted works such as digital maps.
The District Court in Szczecin in a judgment of 4 February 2010, case file I Co 26/10 sided with Mr Okonek and issued the order blocking the aforementioned thread. ParaRent decided to appeal.
The Appellate Court in Szczecin in a judgment of 18 May 2010, case file I A Cz 296/10 overruled the ban. The Court held that in cases filed against the public media, for the protection of personal rights/property, the court may refuse to grant an injunction against publication of given information if the important public interest opposes such injunction/ban.
Michał Okonek filed another lawsuit against ParaRent.com, for the protection of personal rights and compensation. The case is pending before the the District Court in Szczecin VIII Economic Division, case file VIII GC 106/10. The case is linked with a blocked thread.
Internet domains, case I C 2179/09
April 26th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiOn 2 March 2010, the District Court in Białystok I Civil Division, issued in absentia judgment, case file I C 2179/09, in which it ordered the defendant, a natural person known as “domain name investor” to discontinue the use of tygodnikpowszechny.pl domain name. The court ordered the defendant to publish a full-page paid ad in a weekly magazine, and two ads in two nationwide newspapers (Gazeta Wyborcza and Rzeczpospolita), with an apology defined by the Court. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the amount of 25000 PLN as compensation for infringement of personal rights of Tygodnik Powszechny sp. z o.o. company, and the amount of 15000 PLN as damages for infringement of personal rights of Father Adam Boniecki, the editor of Tygodnik Powszechny. These amounts should be transferred to Fundacji Polska Akcja Humanitarna (the Fundation Polish Humanitarian Action). The court ruled the judgment to be immediately enforceable. The judgment is final.
The court held that the use of Internet domain name may constitute a violation of personal rights taking into account the content which is visible at a website available under a given domain name. The questioned domain name was parked and directed to a website with advertising links. Such content, including texts, which were the visualization of sponsored links, constituted in Court’s opinion an infringement of personal rights.
This judgment is very important for Polish and foreign companies which became the target of cybersquatting if we consider that the Polish case law on personal rights, for instance the Appellate Court in Poznań in a judgment of 22 October 1991, case file I ACr 400/90, already established the rule that the firm under which the company conducts its business, has the same meaning in legal relations, as the name of an individual person.
See also “Polish case law on domain names“.
Internet websites, case I C 1532/09
March 13th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Observatory of Media Freedom in Poland run by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights reported on a case of Augustyn Ormanty, the mayor of Kalwaria Zebrzydowska town, who sued Tomasz Baluś, the administrator of naszakalwaria.pl website, for personal rights infringement after he found that the website hosted defamatory comments directed to his person. Mr. Ormanty decided to request the court to order the removal of 18 comments because he received negative response from Tomasz Baluś who claimed that these questioned statements put in the form of comments to information published at his website, are the individual opinions of people who wrote it, for the content of which, Tomasz Baluś is not responsible, because they are owned by their authors.
The District Court I Civil division in Kraków in a judgment of 11 MArch 2010, case file I C 1532/09, ruled that naszakalwaria.pl website cannot be deemed as the press according to provisions of the Polish Act of 26 January 1984 on Press law – APL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo prasowe), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 5, item 24, with later amendmets, because it did not meet the criterion of periodicity.
The court noted that naszakalwaria.pl website is rather a collection of publications and serves as a wall on which people are able to post their comments. The court emphasized that the purpose of Internet portals, such as naszakalwaria.pl is primarily to initiate and shape public debate on issues important to the local community. The court added that the Internet is, in principle, free from control and could be subject to control only, if it fits the regulation provided in the APL.
The court also stated that Augustyn Ormanty failed to prove that the offensive – in his opinion – comments related to the facts. According to the Court, they were rather opinions, which in principle cannot be judged based on the criterion of truth and falsehood.
In addition, the court held that Tomasz Baluś had a limited capacity for meticulousy checking and editing of the entries appearing on the forum of his website because of their large numbers. The court stated that the measures taken by the Mr. Baluś to search and control the entries for vulgarity and to remove obviously insulting comments were sufficient.
According to the Court, Mr. Ormanty had a possibility and the right to request the removal of comments he found insulting, based on provisions of article 14 the Polish Act of 18 July 2002 on Providing Services by Electronic Means – PSEM – (in Polish: ustwa o świadczeniu usłóg droga elektroniczną), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 144, item. 1204, as amended.
1. A person who gives access to the contents of a network IT system to a customer, where the customer stores data, is not aware of the illegal features of the data or activity connected with the data and upon receiving an official notification or credible information about the illegal features of the data or activity connected with it, immediately bars access to the data, shall not be responsible for the data.
2. A Service provider who has received the official notification of an illegal character of the stored data that was supplied by the customer, and prevented the access to the data, shall not be liable to the customer for damages resulting from preventing access to such data.
3. A service provider who has received credible information of the illegal character of the stored data supplied by the customer and prevented access to the data, shall not be liable to the customer for the damage resulting from preventing access to such data, if it has immediately notified the customer of the intention to prevent access to data.
The court pointed out to the argument stating that the mayor is a public figure who must reckon with the fact that its activities may be subject to criticism. As a public figure, Mr. Ormanty should show greater resistance to critical opinions, negatively evaluating the performance of the functions entrusted to him.
In conclusion, the Court added that the law has not kept pace with the development of modern technology and therefore, it does not precisely regulate the issues of freedom of expression in the Internet. Therefore, the careful evaluation of such situations, is entrusted to the judges. Their task is to ensure and guarantee the freedom of expression in similar cases.
See also “Social networking sites, case I A Ca 1202/09“.
Personal rights, case I CSK 217/09
February 26th, 2010, Tomasz RychlickiThe Supreme Court in a judgment of 28 January 2010, case file I CSK 217/09, ruled that the infringement of the plaintiff’s personal interest/rights (his commercial reputation and the firm) was the result of the unacceptable “opinions” and “suggestions” issued by the defendant.
Internet domains, case Ico 203/09
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 “Polish case law on domain names“.
Personal rights, case I ACa 949/09
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 “Computer crime, case V K 1595/08“.
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 articles 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.