Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: review

Polish regulations on the protection of trade secrets

October 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

I. Definitions
There is no definition of “trade secrets” in Polish law. However, there are regulations that allow for very effective protection.

II. The law
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.

II.A. Unfiar competition
Act on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: Ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji) of 16 April 1993, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 47, item 211, with later amendments.

Article 11
An act of unfair competition is the transfer, disclosure or use of third party information, which is company confidential or their receipt from an unauthorised person, if it threatens or violates the interests of the entrepreneur.
2. The provisions of section 1 shall also apply to the person who has been rendering work based on employment contract or another legal relation, for the period of three years from its expiration, unless the contract stipulates otherwise or there is no longer secrecy.
3. The provisions of section 1 shall not apply to the person who, bona fide, by way of a legal operation against payment, acquired the information constituting a business secrecy. The court may oblige the acquirer to the appropriate remuneration for its use, nevertheless for a period not longer than duration of secrecy.
4. Company confidentiality is understood to include the entrepreneur’s technical, technological organisational or other information having commercial value, which is not disclosed to the public to which the entrepreneur has taken the necessary steps to maintain confidentiality.
(…)
Chapter 4
Penal provisions
Article 23.1. Every person, who contrary to her obligation towards the entrepreneur discloses to another person or uses in her own economic activity information which is a business secrecy, shall be liable to the fine, probation or imprisonment up to 2 years, provided it is to the significant detriment of the entrepreneur.
2. The same sanctions shall apply to the person, who having acquired illegally the business secrecy, discloses it to another person or uses in her own economic activity.

It is noteworthy that definition of “company confidentiality” provided in article 11(4) CUC explicitly included “trade secrets” term before amendments in 2002. The CUC protection of “company confidentiality” can be enforced in civil or crminal proceedings. However, regulations afforded in the CUC basically apply only to relations between entrepreneurs (commercial relationships).

II.B. Civil Code
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 72 [1]. § 1. If during the negotiations, a party has provided information as confidential, the other party is required not to disclose and not to transfer of such information to others and not to use such information for its own purposes, unless the parties otherwise agreed.
§ 2 In the event of failure of performance or improper performance of duties as described in § 1, the entitled person may demand from the other party to undo the damages or to return profits received by the other party.

II.C. Criminal Code
The Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments.

Chapter XXXIII. Crimes against protection of information
(…)
Article 267.
§ 1. Whoever, without being authorised to do so, acquires information not destined for him, by opening a sealed letter, or connecting to a wire that transmits information or by breaching electronic, magnetic or other special protection for that information shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.
§ 2. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone, who, in order to acquire information to which he is not authorised to access, installs or uses tapping, visual detection or other special equipment.
§ 3. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone, who imparts to another person the information obtained in the manner specified in § 1 or 2 discloses to another person.
§ 4. The prosecution of the offence specified in § 1 – 3 shall occur on a motion of the injured person.

The mentioned above regulations are the basic. There are some other legal acts that govern specific fields of law. For instance the Act on Acountancy, the Code of Commercial Companies, the Code of Labour, the Act on Banks Law etc.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 390/08

September 8th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

RSX Company from Katowice applied for and was granted trade mark protection for word trade mark MERCI on 4 September 2003, R-146586. The sign covered substitutes for coffee and coffee-based beverages as provided in class 30.

August Storck KG, the manufacturer of MERCI chocolates from Germany, filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection of the RSX trade mark. August Storck has owned the MERCI word trade mark R-68903 protected in Poland since 1990, also in class 30 (cocoa, chocolate, sweets). The decision on registration was issued by the Polish Patent Office on 4 March 1992. August Storck also registered a MERCI word-figurative trade mark in Poland, based on the Madrid Agreement’s provisions, IR-0728855.

IR-0728855

The German company alleged during the invaidation proeceedings that between those two signs there exists a risk of collision. Originally, the Polish Patent office ruled that there was no chance of such risk, because the goods were different, namely, coffee and cocoa. Accordingly, the PPO rejected the opposition filed by August Storck.

The German Company appealed against the PPO’s decision to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. August Storck’s representative alleged that PPO has incorrectly analyzed the goods in question. The VAC agreed with this argument in its judgement of 13 October 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 895/06 and it annulled the PPO’s decision. The court emphasized the fact that there was no doubt that coffee and cocoa belonged to the same group of goods and that they were sold in the same stores. Coffee is a component of many chocolate products. In the court’s opinion, the PPO wrongly considered that these goods were not homogeneous. DAC also found that PPO improperly accepted that coffee and cocoa may be produced by different undertakings.

The case went back to the Polish Patent Office. RSX argued that coffee is a specific drink and no-one would connect it with cocoa, since they are not complementary goods. The RSX representative pointed that in one class the goods may be heterogeneous, for instance chewing gum and chocolate. However, the PPO in its decision of 28 August 2007 (Sp. 65/07) annulled the disputed mark. The Office held that in accordance with article 9(1)(1) of 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 amendment, three conditions have to be fulfilled: the signs are identical or similar, homogeneity of goods, the possibility of leading a consumer into confusion as to the origin of goods. The PPO acknowledged in its decision that all three conditions were met.

This time RSX appealed the PPO’s decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 July 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 390/08 dismissed the complaint and ruled that PPO’s decision was this time correct. Coffee and cocoa are competitive products and the consumers overlap. Cocoa can be bought by a follower of coffee (not necessarily a person who drinks it), for example, as a gift for someone. Therefore, these are homogeneous goods.

Advertising law, new rules for pharmaceutical products

September 7th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the article entitled “Przybędzie zakazów w reklamach leków“, the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita reports a recent legislative initiative regarding a draft regulation on advertising of medicinal products prepared by the Polish Ministry of Health. Monitors displaying ads may disappear from pharmacies. Advertising of any medicines will not be allowed in hospitals or pharmacies. The proposed draft especially concerns audio and audiovisual advertising. A similar ban exists in the current Regulation of the Minister of Health of 16 December 2002 on the advertising of medicinal products, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2002 No. 230, item 1936, however, it allows for advertising contained in radio and television programmes. There were assembled special monitors to broadcast TV spots in some pharmacies. Such exceptions will no longer be allowed , and the display of medicine advertising spots will become illegal.

The proposal also includes the types of advertising of medicinal products: i.e. advertising which is targeted to the general public or persons who are entitled to issue medical prescriptions or persons engaged in the marketing of medicinal products. The Ministry of Health has stresses that such specification will clearly defined market rules and will have a positive effects on fair competition.

Advertising in visual form must contain a warning.

Before use, read the label, which includes indications, contra-indications, data on side effects, dosage and information about the medicinal use of the product, or consult your doctor or pharmacist.

The warning has to be included in any part of advertising, on a flat surface which is not less than 10 percent of total surface area of the ad. The text must be distinguished from the background and it be legible. A warning in an audiovisual advertising has to be placed in the lower parts of the plane, which is not less than 20 percent of the total surface area. It must also be clearly legible in the Polish language and appear on the screen for not less than 5 seconds.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 127/07 and Sp. 254/07

August 11th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Sokpol Company from Myszków has applied for the word-figurative trade mark “Zloty Potok” (“Golden stream”) in 2001. In 2006, the Polish Patent Office granted the right of protection for this trade mark, R-177610.

R-177610

Zloty Potok Company, which has its headquarters in the village of Złoty Potok, applied for a word-figurative trade mark “Zloty Potok Naturalna Woda Zródlana” in 2005. In 2007, the PPO granted the protection right R-185543. Zloty Potok and Gmina Janów have filed a request for invalidation of the right of protection Sokpol’s trade mark before the Polish Patent Office.

R-185543

The patent attorney representing Zloty Potok argued that Sokpol’s trade mark is misleading because its products did not come from Zloty Potok’s spring from Janów and that such water is only produced by Zloty Potok. Sokpol only received a consent to use this name for its products from the administrative district of Gmina Lesna, where Zloty Potok is located. However the distance between the village of Zloty Potok and Myszków, where Sokpol is based,is around 370 km. This situation, in Zloty Potok representative’s opinion, could also lead to consumers confusion.

The PPO in its decisions case no Sp. 127/07 and Sp. 254/07, has ruled that both “Zloty Potok” trade marks differ because of their rich layout and fancy designs and that there is no risk of consumer confusion as regards to origin of goods. These decisions are not final and are not binding. Both parties may lodge a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court.

Access to public information, case II GSK 459/07

August 7th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 March 2008 case file II GSK 459/07 held at the begining of judgment’s justification that administrative decisions are public information within the meaning of article 1(1) of the API and may be disclosed, in accordance with 6(1) pt 4 letter a, first tiret of the API. According to the SAC, after completion of the application proceedings, including any inter partes proceedings, article 251 of the IPL will no longer be applicable, and access to case files will be based on the general provisions of the API. Pursuant to article2(2) of the API, the Authority cannot require to prove legitemate or factual interest from the person entitled to a right to public information.

The Court also held that not all documents from the case file should be considered public information. Such nature have only official documents. Pursuant to article 6(2) of the API, an official document within the meaning of the Act is the content of the declaration of will or knowledge, recorded and signed, in any form by a public official under the provisions of the Penal Code, within its competence, that is addressed to another entity or put to the file.

Trade mark law, case I KZP 8/08

July 1st, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Supreme Court, the Criminal Law Chamber sitting in extended bench of seven Justices, in its judgment of 30 June 2008 case file I KZP 8/08 answered the question, whether the Polish legislator’s intent was to leave acts of purchasing counterfeit goods with impunity, or should such deeds be deemed as fencing according to provisions of Articles 291 and 292 of the Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with subsequent amendments.

This case concerned Małgorzata N. (publication of full personal data is not allowed in Polish criminal proceedings unless otherwise decided by a court) who was accused by the prosecutor of helping to sell clothes which were unlawfully bearing registered trade marks such as Everlast, Adidas, Puma and Nike. The charges were based on the article 291 of the CRC.

1. Whoever acquires property obtained by means of a prohibited act, or assists in its disposition, or receives such property or assists in the concealment thereof shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 3 months and 5 years.
2. In the event that the act is of a lesser significance, the perpetrator shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.

The court of the first instance (Regional Court) has ruled that Małgorzata N. was guilty of buying contested clothes in unfound place and time, and at the same time knowing that those products unlawfully bore registered trade marks. The Court sentenced the defendant for 50 daily rates of fine, each worth 40 PLN. Małgorzata N. appealed. Her attorney argued that the court of the first instance erred in the interpretation of article 291 of CRC which should be only applied in a case of the first purchase as it was decided by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 24 May 2005 case file I KZP 13/05. See “Trade mark law, case I KZP 13/05“. According to defendant’s attorney the Supreme Court’s interpretation excluded Małgorzata N.’s guilt because further turnover of such goods was beyond the scope of penalisation. Article 305(1) was amended of 31 July 2007 to adjust its provisions to every situation of “market turnover”.

Anyone marking goods with a counterfeit trade mark, registered trade mark for which one does not have the right to use, for the purpose of introducing them on the market or anyone who is making a turnover of goods bearing such trade mark, shall be liable to a fine, limitation of freedom or imprisonment for a period of up to two years.

The Supreme Court held that any behaviour which is not understood as “introduction to market” as defined in article 305(1) of the IPL (after amendments from 2007) and consisting of further market turnouver of goods bearing counterfeited trade marks is not a misdemeanour defined by article 291 and 292 of the PPC because it does not fulfill a trait of “property obtained by means of a prohibited act”.

Trade mark law, case II CSK 428/06

June 18th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court Civil Chamber in its judgment of 7 March 2008, case file II CSK 428/06 ruled that the fact that the company has been operating on the Polish market for several years, has a rich tradition, and its trade marks are well known because of the long-term mass production, continuous use and continuous presence in the market, advertising, and customers and that they will associate the sign and its manufacturer with a product, cannot determine the method of accepting these signs to the category of reputed trade marks.

The selection of reputable trade marks is made by using a different criterion than the one which help to distinguish a group of well-known trade marks. The Reputation of the trade mean its attractiveness, the value of advertising and the ability to stimulate the sales of goods marked. It is therefore a criterion referring to the particular quality of a mark rather than to the degree of knowledge about such sign. It expresses the opinion that a reputable sign, which – unlike trade marks used as the indication of origin – implements a “clean” function of attracting customers. In the absence of legal definition, a reputed trade mark should therefore be assess according to the abovementioned criteria, rather than by knowledge in the market that provides the basis for a well known trade marks.

Trade mark law, case Sp. 161/07

May 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office issued a decision case act signature Sp. 161/07, regarding the registration of Chantal trade mark. Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe Chantal Roman Godek applied for CHANTAL trade mark registration in classes 3 and 5 in 2002. The PPO issued its positive decision and registered CHANTAL R-170165 trade mark on 16 December 2006. Chanel opposed. The PPO acknowledged the reputation of Chanel mark and similarity of goods, however the Opposition Board also concluded that both marks are not alike in this manner that it would lead to the risk of consumers confusion. The Board also noted that the clientele to which those products are directed differs. The decision is not final and is not binding.

Copyright law, case VI ACa 1259/06

March 17th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 17 October 2007 case file VI ACa 1259/06 held that the Polish Act of 16 February 2007 on Protection of Competition and Consumers – APCC – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 50, item 331, with subsequent amendments, define an entrepreneur very broadly. According to the Court, this definition will even cover such entities whose activity is not associated with a typical business. Therefore, there was no reasons to deny such a status to the Polish Association od Writers and Composers (Stowarzyszenie Autorów – ZAiKS), a collecting society. This argument was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 7 April 2004 case file III SK 22/04, published in OSNP 2005/3/46. The Court had no doubt that ZAiKS is active in providing professional services, in a structured and continuous manner, on its behalf, in the field of collective management of assigned copyrights, and thus it participates in business transactions. In applying the provisions of the APCC, “commercial purpose” as the last of the important parameters of economic activity means to obtain certain benefits for the operator of such activities. The use of such obtained benefits is, however, indifferent.

The European Court of Justice in its judgment of 27 March 1974 Case C-127/73 BRT v. SABAM published in ECR 1974, p. 313, ruled that the association of authors can be deemed as an entrepreneur, because an association whose object is to exploit and manage copyrights for gain “pursues a business activity consisting in the provision of services in respect of composers, authors, and publishers”.

It was undisputed that ZAiKS grants licenses for fee, and it also collects appropriate fees for the management of assigned rights. Therefore it has a measurable financial benefits from its activities. The fact that these benefits are fully allocated to the statutory objectives does not mean, in light of the abovementioned comments that ZAiKS work has nothing to do with the commercial objectives. The Court ruled that the Society of Authors ZAiKS being a non-profit organizations, is also a legal person providing services to the public, because it is organizing public access to creative activity, and licenses the use of this creativity. Therefore, ZAiKS is an entrepreneur as defined in the APCC.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

US case law on computers and IT

February 28th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Last updated on 16 January 2010.

This short compilation of US computer (IT, Internet, cyberlaw, telecommunication) case law will be also available and under later developement on my new Wiki system.

I. Jurisdiction
II. Contracts
III. Trespass to chattels
IV. Intellectual Property
V. Regulating content and speech
VI. Privacy
VII. Computer and Internet crimes
VIII. E-government
IX. Litigation

I. JURISDICTION

A. Specific jurisdiction.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo DOT Com, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (D. Pa. 1997).
Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Crate & Barrel Ltd., 96 F. Supp. 2d 824 (D. Ill. 2000).
Heathmount A.E. Corp. v. Technodome.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 860 (D. Va. 2000).
ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002).
Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002).
Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262 (Cal. 2002).
Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002).
Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2004).

B. General jurisdiction

C. Criminal analogy

United States v. Rowe, 414 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2005).

D. Enforcement

Louis Feraud Int’l S.A.R.L. v. Viewfinder Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

II. CONTRACTS

A. Browserwrap licenses

Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (D. Cal. 2000).
Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 (D. Cal. 2000).
Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Comb v. Paypal, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Cal. 2002).
Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8450 (D. Cal. 2005).

B. Shrinkwrap and clikwrap licenses

Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991).
Arizona Retail Sys. v. Software Link, Inc. 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993).
Caspi v. Microsoft Network, 323 N.J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 1999).
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997).
Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 246, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (App. Div. 1998).
Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2000).
Williams v. America Online, Inc., 2001 Mass. Super. LEXIS 11 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001).
i.Lan Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002).

C. Terms Of Service

Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (D. Cal. 2007)

D. Software licenses

Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Elecs., 846 F. Supp. 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
National Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1993).
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
Bowers v. Baystate Techs., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Packeteer, Inc. v. Valencia Sys., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21348 (D. Cal. 2007).

E. FLOSS licenses

Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Ill. 2004).
Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001).
Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002).
SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 318784 (D.Utah, 2005).
Wallace v. Free Software Found., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53003 (D. Ind. 2006).
Wallace v. IBM, 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006).

F. Contractual and statutory liability for defective software

Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., 39 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
In re AOL, Inc. Version 5.0 Software Litig., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2001).
In re SONY BMG CD Technologies Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9575, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9329, (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

G. Auction sites and contracts

Perez v. Hung Kien Luu, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8670 (Tex. App. 2007)

III. TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

A. Trespass involving spam

Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, 962 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Ohio 1997).
America Online v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D. Va. 1998).

B. Trespass to online databases

Ebay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Cal. 2000).
Buchanan Marine, Inc. v. McCormack Sand Co., 743 F. Supp. 139 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).
Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (Cal. 2003).
Assessment Techs. of Wi, LLC v. Wire Data, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2004).
Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D. Pa. 2007).

IV. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

A. Copyright
1. Protection of computer software

Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co., 462 F. Supp. 1003 (D. Tex. 1978).
Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
Sega Enters. v. Maphia, 857 F. Supp. 679 (D. Cal. 1994).
Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1569, 996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15454 (E.D. Va. 1996).
Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, 516 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1996).

2. Reverse engineering, technological protection measures, anti-circumventions (17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1204)

Hubco Data Products Corp. v. Management Assistance, Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 450, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19515.
Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).
Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. GameMasters, 87 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1889 (W.D. Wash. 2000).
Felten v. RIAA, No. CV-0102669 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2001).
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
United States v. Elcomsoft Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
Pearl Investments, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 326 (D.Me. 2003).
Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
321 Studios v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
I.M.S. Inquiry Mgmt. Sys., Ltd. v. Bershire Info. Sys., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Filipiak, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Cal. 2005).
Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, LLP, 401 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005).
Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F.Supp.2d 1096 (D. Cal. 2007).
Auto Inspection Services, Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc. et al. (E.D. Mich. 2007).

3. Different copyright infringement issues (civil actions, DMCA, websites)

L.A.Times v. Free Republic, 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1453, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (D. Cal. 2000).
Umg Recordings v. Mp3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
Tur v. Youtube, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50254 (D. Cal. 2007).
Biosafe-One, Inc. v. Hawks, 524 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D.N.Y. 2007).

4. Derivative Works issues (framing, deep links)

Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, 45 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 2005, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2265 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1344, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4553 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999).
Digital Equip. Corp. v. AltaVista Tech., 960 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass. 1997).
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33937 (9th Cir. 2000).

5. Communication Act, satellite programming

DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2007).

B. Trademarks (domain names and unfair competition, search engines and trademarks, keywords)
1. Domain names as trademarks

Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004).
Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 74 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1385, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. 2005)
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005).

2. Cybersquatting

Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000).
Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002).
Barcelona.com, Inc. v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003).
Atlas Copco AB v. www.atlascopcoiran.com, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1828 (D. Va. 2008).

3. Free speech and fair use of trademarks in domain names

C. Databases

D. Patents (software patents and business models patents)

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972).
In re Application of Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 564 F. Supp. 1358 (D. Del. 1983).
Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communs., Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
British Telecomms. PLC v. Prodigy Communs. Corp., 217 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

E. Trade secrets

Integrated Cash Management Services, Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc., 920 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1990).
Ashland Management v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1993).
Barr-Mullin, Inc. v. Browning, 108 N.C. App. 590 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1993).
Rivendell Forest Prods. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 28 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 1994).
Avtec Sys. v. Peiffer, 38 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1922, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25901 (4th Cir. 1995).
Garelli Wong & Assocs. v. Nichols, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3288 (D. Ill. 2008).
Bank Julius Baer & Co. v. Wikileaks, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14758 (D. Cal. 2008).

V. REGULATING CONTENT AND COMMUNICATION

A. Pornography

Reno v. Aclu, 521 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1997).

B. Defamation and information torts

Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (S.D.N.Y. Misc. 1995).
Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000).
Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003).
Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003).
Barrett v. Rosenthal, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
Batzel v. Smith, 372 F. Supp. 2d 546 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
Universal Commun. Sys. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007).
Mazur v. Ebay, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16561 (D. Cal. 2008).
Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civ. Rights Under Law v. Craigslist, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5472 (7th Cir. 2008).

C. Spam

Media3 Techs., LLC v. Mail Abuse Prevention Sys., LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1310 (D. Mass. 2001).
White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. Univ. of Texas, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005).
Hall v. EarthLink Network, Inc., 396 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2005).
Phillips v. Worldwide Internet Solutions, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44152 (D. Cal. 2006).
Jaynes v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 673 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
United States v. Cyberheat, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15448 (D. Ariz. 2007).

D. Liability of internet service providers

Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commun. Servs., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (D. Cal. 1995).
United States v. Am. Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2003).
ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Cmtys., Inc., 239 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2001).
Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004).
Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Wash. 2004).
Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc., 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004).
CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004).
Charter Communs., Inc. v. Charter Communs., Inc., 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005).
Field v. Google Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006).

VI. PRIVACY (cookies, adware, spyware)

A. Cookies, adware

In re Doubleclick Privacy Litig., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
In re Intuit Privacy Litig., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
Directv, Inc. v. Jae Sun Chin, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15815 (W.D. Tex. 2003).

B. Spyware

Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
Sotelo v. DirectRevenue, LLC, 384 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ill. 2005).

C. Other issues
1. Posting different types of information

Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group, 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (D. Cal. 1998).
In the Matter of Geocities, 127 F.T.C. 94 (F.T.C 1999).
Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148 (N.H. 2003).
Topheavy Studios, Inc. v. Doe, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6462 (Tex. App. 2005).
John Doe No. 1 v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005).
Federal Trade Commission, Gateway Learning Corporation; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 69 Fed. Reg. 42176, (July 14, 2004).
Lambert v. Hartman, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4019 (6th Cir. 2008).

2. Data retention and interception (administrative, civil and criminal aspects)

Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Serv., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994).
McVeigh v. Cohen, 983 F. Supp. 215 (D.D.C. 1998).
Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (D. Cal. 1999).
United States v. Kennedy, 81 F.Supp.2d 1103 (D. Kan 2000).
United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572 (D.N.J. 2001).
Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2001).
Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003).
United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2003).
Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005).
Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2277, 97 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1104 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
Doe I v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006).
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

VII. COMPUTER AND INTERNET CRIMES

A. Hacking (system breach and/or data manipulation, etc.)

State v. McGraw, 480 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1985).
State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22 (Wash. 1993).
Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
United States v. Sablan, 92 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 1996).
Sherman & Co. v. Salton Maxim Housewares, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 2d 817 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp., 171 F. Supp. 2d 667 (D. Tex. 2001).
United States v. Ivanov, 175 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Conn. 2001).
Guin v. Brazos Higher Educ. Serv. Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4846 (D. Minn. 2006).
In the Matter of BJ’S Wholesale Club, Inc., 2005 FTC LEXIS 134 (F.T.C 2005).
United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2007).

B. Dos, DDoS, botnets

Tyco Int’l (US) Inc. v. Doe, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25136 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
United States v. Ancheta, case No.2:05CR01060, unpublished (C.D. Cal. 2006).

C. Viruses, worms, trojans, timebombs

United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991).
State v. Corcoran, 186 Wis. 2d 616 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
United States v. Lloyd, 269 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2001).
United States v. Pierre-Louis, 54 Fed. Appx. 691 (11th Cir. 2002).

D. IP crimes

United States v. Lambert, 446 F. Supp. 890 (D. Conn. 1978).
United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994).
Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11392, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,658 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
United States v. Hsu, 40 F. Supp. 2d 623 (D. Pa. 1999).

E. Digital espionage, carding, e-banking robbery, online wars

F. Pornography

United States v. Maxwell, 446 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2006).

G. Other

People v. Fernino, 2008 NY Slip Op 28044, 1 (N.Y. Misc. 2008).

VIII. E-government (e-administration, e-voting, technological neutrality of the state, open standards) issues

Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Cal. 2004).

IX. Litigation (e-evidences etc.)

Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2007).

Categories: case law | computer law | telecommunication law | US law.

Polish patent attorneys, case II GSK 195/05

February 26th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 3 October 2005 case file II GSK 195/05 published in Orzecznictwo Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego i Wojewódzkich Sądów Administracyjnych 2006/2/65/199, ruled that according to the provisions of Article 9(1) of the Polish Act of 11 April 2001 on Patent Attorneys – APAT – (in Polish: ustawa o rzecznikach patentowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 49, item 509, with subsequent amendments, a patent attorney should act as agent in proceedings before the Polish Patent Office, Polish courts and other bodies deciding on industrial property matters. This article includes all forms of practice of the patent attorney (for the patent attorneys’ firm, for the employer and on the basis of civil contracts) and all matters of industrial property within the meaning of Article 2 of the APAT, that are decided in each of the aforementioned proceedings.

Polish patent attorneys, case II GSK 234/06

February 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Kulikowska & Kulikowski is a firm of patent attorneys (in Polish: kancelaria rzecznikow patentowych), constituted as a registered partnership. In the Polish legal system, there is no distinction between trade mark attorneys and patent attorneys: the legal profession, which deals with industrial property law, performs both those functions. The profession is regulated by the Act of 11 April 2001 on Patent Attorneys – APAT – (in Polish: ustawa o rzecznikach patentowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 49, item 509, with subsequent amendments, and is recognized by the Polish Code of Commercial Companies – CCC – (in Polish: Kodeks spółek handlowych) of 15 September 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 94, item. 1037, with subsequent amendments, as a profession of public trust.

In 2003, a year after making an offer to buy trade mark rights, which was turned down, K&K applied to the Polish Patent Office for the registration of the FLESZ trade mark for their own interest. There was rampant speculation that the law firm might have represented a client, the identity of whom they wished to keep secret in order to obtain the trade mark at a lower price. K&K initiated the proceedings to revoke the FLESZ trade mark registered in the name of Inco-Veritas in 1993. K&K based its claim on the fact that Inco-Veritas had ceased use of the mark for 5 years. The PPO discontinued the proceeding.

In 2005, K&K appealed to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. That court overturned the contested decision and ruled that the law firm could move for the revocation of the registered rights since the FLESZ trade mark had not been used. A court ruling to support K&K’s claim is needed for the PPO to let the firm register the trade mark for themselves.

Subsequently, Inco-Veritas filed the cassation complaint before the Polish Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The Court ruled that K&K could not be a party in the lawsuit concerning the revocation of the rights in question because it lacked any proper interest to do so. The Court based its ruling on regulations included in the APA which provides that a law firm may provide services in the field of industrial property only to third parties. The SAC also ruled that such firms are not recognized as entrepreneurs as defined in Article 87(2) of the Act of 19 November 1999 on the Law of Economic Activity – ALEA – (in Polish: Prawo działalności gospodarczej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 101, item 1178. This law will be valid till 2011. Moreover, the SAC judged that K&K, being a law firm of patent attorneys and a registered partnership, was a company of public confidence. Accordingly, trade mark registration for its own use might undermine its credibility. The Voivodeship Administrative Court’s verdict was reversed and remitted for reconsideration. In 2006, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw confirmed SAC’s judgment and rejected K&K’s claim.

K&K filed a cassation suit to the Supreme Administrative Court claiming that article 87(2) of the ALEA and article 72 of the APA were inconsistent with the Polish Constitution with regard to the freedom to acquire property rights. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 29 March 2007 case file II GSK 234/06 dismissed K&K’s suit and ruled that a patent attorney is not an entrepreneur and that the freedom of economic activities may be limited by important public interest. In this case, the limitation is recognized as the idea of “the profession of public confidence”. Judge Anna Robotowska said that it was clear that regulations limiting patent attorneys’ commercial activities are constitutional. The Court did not find it applicable to send the case to the Court of Justice of the European Communities because the lawsuit had begun in 2003, which is before Poland joined the European Union. The judgment confirmed that a Polish patent attorney’s prime role is to professionally represent clients seeking trade mark registration. Barring patent attorneys from registering trade marks in their own interest may also prevent them from unethical business practices.

Trade mark law, case II CR 143/88

February 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 25 October 1988 case file II CR 143/88, published in PUG 1990, no. 5-6, item 10, ruled that a trade mark is solely a material/economic interest and therefore it’s not subject to protection under the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with subsequent amendments.

Article 23
The personal interests/rights 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.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 236/07

February 11th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 28 November 2007, case file II GSK 236/07 held that the distinctive character of a trade mark may orginally arise from the nature of a sign or may later originate from the use of such trade mark on the market (acquired distinctiveness). A sign acquires the secondary meaning, if it lacked the distinctive character earlier, but during the use it became the source of information about the origin of a product.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 207/07

December 4th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 November 2007 case file II GSK 207/07 held that even if the reputed mark is protected against the use on any goods, if this would bring a user an unfair advantage or it would be detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the trade mark, it does not mean that the both signs at issue should not be a subject to examination to determine their similarity or lack of it.

R-149636

The case concerned a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection to the trade mark “dodoni A MOŻE MY JESTEŚMY DLA CIEBIE LEPSI COLA” R-149636 that was registered for Pepsi Corp. The SAC also ruled that the findings that both trade marks are not similar also implies that there is a lack of association between these signs by potential recipients.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 127/07

October 5th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 20 September 2007, case file II GSK 127/07, unpublished, ruled that other requirements must be satisfied while starting the invalidation proceedings, and the other in the request on the lapse of a right of protection for a trademark. The right of protection for a trademark right may be invalidated in whole or in part, if it has been granted contrary to the statutory conditions (as defined in article 164 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in 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), and the lapse of a right of protection is dependent on the occurrence of other, well-defined conditions (articles 168 and 169 of the IPL). Also the implication of each of these decisions differs – at the ex tunc in the invalidation proceedings, and after fixed period or the occurrence of a particular situation constituting a condition of the lapse.

Civil law, case II C 903/06

August 2nd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Regional Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 6 February 2007 case file II C 903/06 held that Internet auctions organized by the popular websites such as allegro.pl and ebay.com are auctions as defined in article 70 ¹ of the Civil Code. Auction’s closing within the meaning of the Civil Code is a statement generated by the system or by auction’s organizer and sent to the bidder which has submitted the best offer. This message should be treated just as a statement of will of the seller who accepted the offer. It means that the contract takes effect not due to the passage of time, but precisely upon a receipt by the bidder of seller’s statement of acceptance of his offer.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 248/06

July 21st, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 55/06“. Piotr Dyszkiewicz and Zbigniew Anozy – both partners of civil partnership, unsatisfied with the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, have filed a cassation complaint.

Z-223847

The Supreme Administrative Court its judgment of 22 March 2007 case file II GSK 248/06 repealed both the questioned order of the Polish Patent Office and the judgment of the VAC. The SAC based its conclusions on procedural matters. According to the SAC, all problems discussed by the VAC with regard to the co-ownership of THERMO SHIELD Z-223847 trade mark application and partners who quit the cvil partnership, were not a procedural issue, but it concerned very important merits, namely, who should be granted the right of protection for the trade mark for certain goods. The provisions the IPL does not provide that such an issue could be resolved by the order in the proceedings, i.e. before the adoption of a decision of the Polish Patent Office on the termination of the proceedings regarding THERMO SHIELD Z-223847 trade mark application. This is a substantive matter and a conclusion can be taken only in the decision of the PPO issued in proceedings involving all the people who made the trade mark application as partners of the civil partnership.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 1945/05

July 11th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 17 January 2006, case file VI SA/Wa 1945/05 in case concerning “SZCZAWNICKI zdrój” R-147476 trade mark ruled that the Polish Patent Office while deciding the request for the invalidation of the right of protection for a trade mark has to examine the sign in a form in which it was applied for the registration not in a form that the trade mark is used on the market, for example as the product label. The refusal of the invalidation of “SZCZAWNICKI Zdrój” trade mark (used inter alia as a designation for mineral waters), which was conducted by the Polish Patent Office without adequate consideration, especially in case if the disputed mark has information character that points to the place of origin of goods that are produced by the prorietor of the earlier trade mark registration and which may in consequence be perceived by the consumers as an indication which has no relation with a given producer, was made in violation with the provisions of administrative procedure.

R-147476

Unfair competition, case V CSK 237/06

June 22nd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

Hortex Holding SA Company (Hortex) filed a suit against Hortino, seeking (i) a preliminary injunction to prohibit Hortino labelling its products with its trade mark, (ii) an order that Hortino publish an apology in the press, and (iii) the return of unjustified and undeserved profits gained through the trade mark infringement.

The legal dispute between Hortex and Hortino spanned two different jurisdictions. Trade mark invalidation suits are based on the administrative procedure and this case was reported in my post entitled “Trade mark law, case II GSK 63/05“.

While the administrative procedure was running its course, Hortex commenced civil proceedings against Hortino. Its petition included a claim for trade mark infringement under articles 19 and 20 of 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, repealed on 22 August 2001 by the Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in 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, and breach of article 10 of the Polish 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.

Article 10
(1) Such indication of products or services or its lack, which may mislead customers in relation to the origin, quantity, quality, components, manufacturing process, usefulness, possible application, repair, maintenance and another significant features of products or services as well as concealing the risks connected with their use, shall be the act of unfair competition.
(2) Releasing for free circulation products in the packing which may cause effects referred to in section 1 above shall be the act of unfair competition, unless the use of such packing is justified by technical reasons

Hortex asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction against Hortino and to order Hortino to publish a specified apology in the press. Hortex also asked the court to order the reimbursement of unfounded and undeserved profits gained by means of its trade mark infringement. The Court of the First Instance acknowledged the first two claims in its judgment but did not issue any order regarding the monetary award because, in its opinion, Hortex had not proved sufficiently that any of Hortino’s profits had been obtained through the use of its similar trade mark. Both parties appealed.

The appellate court varied the judgment in so far as it affected monetary damages and ordered Hortino to pay 304,000 zloty. The court based its calculations on a test of a fictional licence fee. Hortino then filed a cassation complaint before the Supreme Court, insisting that the judgment was decided in contravention of the CUC and the TMA, some procedural regulations, and even international treaties. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 10 August 2006, case file V CSK 237/06, dismissed the petition and upheld the contested judgment. Judge Tadeusz Zyznowski pointed that all courts, including the Supreme Administrative Court, had reached their decisions in a proper manner. Hortino’s actions were clearly made in bad faith and could lead many consumers to confusion about the origin of labelled and sold products.

The method of establishing the quantum of profits gained by the trade mark infringer is based on the Court of Second Instance’s findings. That court ruled that the measure should be a fictional and hypothetical licence agreement’s fee that would be owed to the trade mark holder if the disputing parties were to have signed a trade mark licence agreement. In the civil proceedings, the appellate court set the fee level at 3 per cent of all profits gained by Hortino when it was selling goods bearing the disputed trade mark.

The Republic of Poland is one of many European countries that, in the course of its legal history, adopted the civil law system. From the point of view of common law lawyers, it simply means that Polish courts do not follow their opinions and judgments. There are no legally binding precedents except for the Supreme Court’s legal rulings. Nonetheless, after the Supreme Court’s final judgment in the issue described above, based on the cassation procedure, one may be sure that all inferior courts will be eager to employ the methods stipulated in this instance.

Internet domains and trade mark law, case I ACa 1228/05

June 14th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Poznań in its judgment of 26 April 2006, case file I ACa 1228/05, published in electronic database LEX no. 214296, ruled that in the case of a trade mark in the form of a particular word, the word representing a sign it is important, so long as it has the distinctive character and it is possible to distinguish the goods supplied or manufactured by a company from the products of another company. The appearance of a sign that may be represented by letters written in different fonts was less important in the described case. The conclusion that the only the graphic/figurative similarity between the two marks would give a plaintiff the right to assert claims arising out from article 296 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in 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, would render the protection resulting from this provision purely illusory and would wreck the sense of norms arising from this article.

Article 296
1. Any person whose right of protection for a trademark has been infringed or any person who is permitted by law to do so, may demand the infringing party to cease the infringement, to surrender the unlawfully obtained profits and in case of infringement caused by fault also to redress the damage:
(i) in accordance with the general principles of law,
(ii) by the payment of a sum of money at the amount corresponding to the license fee or of other reasonable compensation, which while being vindicated would have been due on account of consent given by the holder to exploit his trademark.

1a. To the claims referred to in paragraph (1) the provisions of Article 287(2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.

2. Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(i) a trademark identical to a trademark registered in respect of identical goods,
(ii) a trademark identical or similar to a trademark registered in respect of identical or similar goods, if a likelihood of misleading the public, including in particular a risk of associating the trademark with a registered trademark, exists;
(iii) a trademark identical or similar to a renown trademark registered for any kind of goods, if such use without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the user or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.

3. The claims referred to in paragraph (1) shall also be enforceable against a person who only puts on the market the goods already bearing that trademark, provided that the goods do not originate from the right holder or from a party authorised by him to use the trademark.

4. When invoking the right of protection conferred by his trademark, the licensor may enforce the claims referred to in paragraph (1) against a licensee who breaches any provision in his licensing contract with regard to its duration and territory covered by the contract, the form covered by the contract in which the trademark may be used, as well as the scope of the goods for which the trademark may be used or the quality of the goods. This shall apply accordingly to the sub-license.

5. A holder of a right of protection for a trademark may enforce the claims referred to in paragraph (1) against a licensee or a sub-licensee in case where the provisions of the sub-license contract, referred to in paragraph (4) have been breached, as well as in the case, where the contract has been concluded in breach of Article 163(2).

The Court also held that the registration of a web site under a given domain name address, and conducting a business activity through, and also its advertising, complete the condition of “trade mark use”.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Unfair competition case, V CSK 311/06

May 11th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 2 January 2007 case file V CSK 311/06 held that it is contrary to good customs/practice to introduce into the market of a product that is generically equivalent to existing goods that are produced by another manufacturer, if the attraction of the attention of customers was caused by the similarity of the packages that created positive associations in the minds of customers’ of the product previously introduced. This case concerned food packaging and labels of spices that were sold under brands Kucharek and Vegeta.

April 22nd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 March 2006, case file VI ACa 1012/05, published in the Jurisprudence of Appellate Courts (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądów Apelacyjnych) of 2007, No 12, item 36, p. 56, held that when it comes the legal protection of the author’s work it does not matter how the infringer came into the possession of the work, or how the work arrived to him, in particular, it does not matter that the work, which is the subject of the infringement came to the infringer as unsolicited correspondence sent electronically, the so-called spam. The protection is not only afforded to the well known creator, whose works are published in big numbers, but to anyone whose rights to a protected work have been infringed in any possible way, copyright law makes no distinctions in the field of protection depending on the value of the work and the recognition enjoyed by the author.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case I CK 312/02

March 17th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 3 December 2003, case file I CK 312/02, has denided the right of action to a collecting society that wanted to initiate a copyright suit in the name of a living person. The Court held that the collective management does not include protection and management of moral and personal rights of living persons, creators or authors. In this case, the Polish Society of Authors and Composers (ZAIKS) wanted to bring an action for the protection of personal rights of a living author who composed music/soundtrack for the movie.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Personal rights, case I ACr 436/91

March 11th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 30 Ocrober 1991, case file I ACr 436/91, that was issued under the old Act on authors rights of 1952, ruled that the personal interests in copyrights, are special personal rights as defined by the general rules of civil law, and they are not a separate conceptual category.

Personal rights, case II CR 753/90

February 25th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 26 September 1991, case file II CR 753/90, published in Przegląd Sądowy 1993, no. 1 p. 95, ruled that a threat or a violation of personal rights/interests of an entiled person and its unlawfulness are the circumstances for the appropriate application of article 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 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 unlawfulness is defined as an action of a third party that is contrary to the widely understood rules of legal order, i.e. legal regulations and rules of social coexistence.

Personal rights, case I CKN 818/97

January 14th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 3 September 1998 case file I CKN 818/97, published in OSP 1999, No. 7-8, item 142, ruled that the protection of personal rights/interests provided in Article 23 and 24 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with subsequent amendments, also includes author’s personal rights.

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.

Personal rights, case V CKN 499/00

January 8th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 5 January 2001 case file V CKN 499/00 ruled that the protection granted by the civil law to personal rights/interests is independent of the protection afforded by the provisions of other laws. It means that this kind of the protection is cumulative. The provisions of Article 23 and 24 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with subsequent amendments, have the fundamental importance.

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 Court held that one of the most important tasks of the civil law is the protection of personal rights/interests, especially human rights. This is a relatively new sphere of the civil law, which traditionally has been oriented to the protection of financial and economical interests.

Polish Patent Office, case II SAB/Wa 99/06

November 25th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a judgment of 24 November 2006, case file II SAB/Wa 99/06, ruled that the public authorities or other bodies performing public functions, in particular the public offices and departments, are required to make public information available in accordance with provisions of article 4(1) point 1 of of the the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej) Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with later amendments.

Therefore, there was no doubt for the VAC that in the light of the aforementioned regulation, the Polish Patent Office is the entity obliged to follow the provisions of the API. However, it was also undisputed, that the rules and the procedure on the access to documents including trade mark applications are governed by the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in 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, served as the basis for the decision to refuse to grant a right of protection.. The provisions of the IPL will constitute lex specialis in relation to the API.

Access to public information, case OSK 600/04

September 12th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Internet Society Poland requested the President of the Social Insurance Institution – ZUS – (in Polish: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to disclose public information concerning technical specification of the KSI MAIL format, that is used in Płatnik software. Płatnik computer program is a free but not open source software that can be used to fill in and send a statement of payment declarations to the Social Insurance Institution. It works only with MS Windows operating systems.

The President of ZUS ruled that the Polish Act of 13 October 1998 on the Social Insurance System, consolidated text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2007 No. 11, item 74 as amended, obliges payers of social insurance to prepare documents including inter alia protected data, for instance sensitive data concerning health, in the electronic format and to transmit of such documents from Płatnik to ZUS. These data are personal data protected by law. Making them available could result in significant disruption in the supply KSI MAIL system, exposing to a breach of professional secrecy of ZUS and undermine the statutory exclusivity of the software provided by ZUS. Regardless of the abovementioned arguments, ZUS stated that KSI MAIL module is subject to business confidentiality and trade secrets due to the greement conducted between ZUS and Prokom Software S.A. on the design and implementation of a comprehensive system for social security. The agreement obliged ZUS to keep confidential all information relating to the transferred technology and solutions contained in KSI MAIL. ZUS based its final decision on the provisions of Article 5 of the the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on Access to Public Information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with subsequent amendments.

Article 5. 1. The right to public information is subject to limitation to the extent and on the principles defined in the provisions on the protection of confidential information and on the protection of other secrets being statutorily protected.
2. The right to public information is subject to limitation in relation to privacy of a natural person or the secret of an entrepreneur. The limitation does not relate to the information on persons performing public functions, being connected with performing these functions, including the conditions of entrusting and performing these functions and in the event when a natural person or entrepreneur resigns from the right to which he was entitled to.
3. The access to public information on matters resolved before the state authorities, in particular in the administrative, criminal or civil proceedings cannot be limited, with the stipulation of it. 1 and 2, with respect to protection of the party’s interest, if the proceedings concern the public authorities or other entities performing public functions or persons performing public functions – in the scope of these functions or tasks.
4. The limitations of access to information on cases, defined in it. 3, do not breach the right to information on organisation and work of the bodies conducting proceedings, in particular on time, mode and place and the order of investigating cases.

ISOC filed a complaint before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. It emphasized that the technical specification of KSI MAIL is public information. Its publication broadens the possibility of fulfilling the duties of citizens who do not wish to invest in MS Windows. ISOC further argued that ZUS can not rely on contractual provisions, as it was contrary to the mandatory provisions of the API and that they are invalid. Also, ZUS made an erroneous interpretation of the law to rely on business secrets and trade secrets, because ISOC did not request the source code of the program, or other works protected by copyright or industrial property rights/patents.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its order of 30 January 2004 case file II SA 3732/03 held that this request concerns matters that are not subject to the administrative jurisdiction, but the civil courts which is in accordance with the provisions of Article 22(1) of the API.

Article 22.
1. The entity, which was denied the access to the public information in respect to its exclusion of its openness when quoting the protection of personal data, the right to privacy and the secret other than state, official, treasury or statistical secret, is entitled to put an action to the court for making such information available.
2. The entity, to which the exclusion of public information is related, has a legal interest in commencing as an accidental intervener on the defendant’s side.
3. The competent court for resolving the cases, defined in it. 1, is the district court with respect to the seat of the entity, which refused to make the public information available.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 March 2004 case file OSK 600/04 stated that the cassation complaint is unfounded and declared that, the term “when quoting” as used in Article 22(1) of the API, has such meaning that it is sufficient for the entity who posses requested information to invoke the mentioned in this provision object of protection, to exclude the possibility of control by an administrative court. The administrative court cannot control in this case the legality of the decision and investigate if the indicated condition actually occurred.