Archive for: trade secrets law

Meta tags in Polish case law

October 8th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The French company Marin’s International brought a case before the Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs, located in Warsaw (in Polish: Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie Wydzial XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych). The issue concerned the use of CTMs Marin’s and Lama by the Polish company Display Flash Poland sp. z o.o., within its website in NOSCRIPT tag. The Court in a judgment case file XXII GWzt 8/09, ruled that the use of someone else’s trademark in website’s metatags infringes trade mark rights of such person, and such behaviour may be also deemed as an unfair competition delict.

I know that I should mention the opinion of the Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 22 September 2009 in joined cases C‑236/08, C‑237/08 and C‑238/08, Google France, Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, Google France v. Viaticum, Luteciel and Google France v. CNRRH, Pierre Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger, a franchisee of Unicis.

(1) The selection by an economic operator, by means of an agreement on paid internet referencing, of a keyword which will trigger, in the event of a request using that word, the display of a link proposing connection to a site operated by that economic operator for the purposes of offering for sale goods or services, and which reproduces or imitates a trade mark registered by a third party and covering identical or similar goods, without the authorisation of the proprietor of that trade mark, does not constitute in itself an infringement of the exclusive right guaranteed to the latter under Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.

(2) Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may not prevent the provider of a paid referencing service from making available to advertisers keywords which reproduce or imitate registered trade marks or from arranging under the referencing agreement for advertising links to sites to be created and favourably displayed, on the basis of those keywords.

(3) In the event that the trade marks have a reputation, the trade mark proprietor may not oppose such use under Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.

(4) The provider of the paid referencing service cannot be regarded as providing an information society service consisting in the storage of information provided by the recipient of the service within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’).

This is way more interesting if one realizes that almost month ago Google has announced that it doesn’t use the “keywords” meta tag in web search ranking.

Protecting trade secrets in Polish law

October 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

I wonder from time to time, whether it is an effective way to write complex studies on the law in the form of a post which is available on a website. The text of such note is formatted in HTML and accessed from a browser, etc. I mean posts or entries which are longer than five sentences, i.e. more or less scientific articles with proper footnotes, etc. Unfortunately, I am not convinced of arguments that publications with a high content of text, which is formatted in the browser window, is the proper way to write and discuss about the law. I think that reading is simply too uncomfortable. On the other hand, a large amount of text can be defined by the CSS with the appropriate format for printing. Alternatively, one may give links to documents that you will be allowed to print… but the latter solution is without a doubt less professional. At the same time, let me try to write something a little bit longer. The subject is Polish regulations on trade secrets.

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

B. 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.

C. 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.

I guess, I do not need to add that these aforementioned 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.

OYSTER

July 23rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

I would like to comment on the whole issue in one sentence: better protect then sue. I know I shouldn’t issue statements like that because being a lawyer I am obliged to write more sophisticated. Well, it looks like I am not a good lawyer. Ad rem.

Details of how to copy the Oyster cards used on London’s transport network can be published, a Dutch judge has ruled.

More details in the article available at bbc.co.uk website, and I think that a quotation of Bruce Schneier is the best punchline.

As bad as the damage is from publishing – and there probably will be some – the damage is much, much worse by not disclosing.

To disclose or not to disclose?

February 27th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Federico Biancuzzi wrote an article entitled “The Laws of Full Disclosure” which is available at securityfocus.com website. There is a little part where he asked me some questions regarding Polish and European legal regimes.

Women and intellectual property

February 18th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

On March 14, 2008, The Polish Patent Office together with The WIPO, The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, The Polish Agency for Enterprise Development, The National chamber of Commerce and The Polish Confederation of Private Employers LEWIATAN organize a conference “IP protection as a condition for women’ success in science and business” which will be located in Warsaw at The Polish National Library. During the above mentioned conference there will be also held an official ending of the 3rd edition of “The Woman-Inventor” competition-plebiscite.

Farewell ThinkSecret!

December 20th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

O’Grady v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2005 CA App. Ct. Pleadings 28579H (CA App. Ct. Pleadings 2005). Some excerpts.

Petitioners seek to stop [**7] a third party from providing the identities of persons who stole highly valuable trade secrets that belong to Apple Computer and were illegally disseminated through Petitioners’ websites. After conducting a thorough but unsuccessful investigation into this unauthorized disclosure, Apple served a narrowly tailored subpoena on an email service provider to recover the stolen materials and discover who had misappropriated Apple’s trade secrets. Asserting special protections they claim attach to their purported role as “journalists,” Petitioners moved for a protective order to block this essential discovery. The trial court denied the motion and this petition followed.

Apple, the real party in interest, is the victim of a serious theft. Unknown individuals stole trade secrets about an unreleased Apple product, code-named “Asteroid,” from secure Apple facilities. Petitioners deliberately posted these misappropriated trade secrets on their websites “PowerPage” and “AppleInsider.” These posts contained little more than outright copies of Apple’s unreleased, copyrighted design, verbatim excerpts from Apple technical specifications, Apple’s pricing projections for Asteroid, and Apple’s comparison of the product to its anticipated competition.
(…)
23. Respondent trial court granted Apple’s application on December 14, 2004, (Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Discovery and Issuance of Subpoenas (“Discovery Order 1″), Ex. 8, 71-72) authorizing Apple to serve subpoenas to “Powerpage.com, Appleinsider.com, and Thinksecret.com requiring each to produce all documents relating to any information posted on its site relating to an unreleased Apple product code named ‘Asteroid’ …” and to serve [*11] subpoenas on each of the Apple News Sites for information leading to the identity of “any individual or individuals who have knowledge regarding the posts on its site disclosing information about the Product … and individuals who received and/or edited information related to the Product.” Apple subsequently drafted and attempted to serve a subpoena on Apple Insider and Monish Bhatia.

And here are informations from different sources.

Apple and Think Secret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides. As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published. Nick Ciarelli, Think Secret’s publisher, said “I’m pleased to have reached this amicable settlement, and will now be able to move forward with my college studies and broader journalistic pursuits.

Linux and IP

November 8th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

I invite all of you to my lecture which is scheduled on October 2007 r., at 11 AM at the Main Library of University of Gdansk, Wita Stwosza street 53, Gdańsk-Przymorze, at the OIN main training room (no 054). During the meeting hosted by Three-City Linux User Group I am going to give a short lecture which is entitled, “Linux and so-called IP rights”.

IP rights in IT businesses

November 2nd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

Innovators Network has invited me to chair a workshop focusing on SMEs from the IT sector. I’ll teach them how to define intellectual assets and protect it, as well as, to raise capital, develop partnerships, and create new streams of revenue. This workshop is titled “Discover a New Source of Income for Your Company through Usage of Intellectual Property. Turning Your Innovation into a Successful Business”. It will take place on December 6, 2007, in beautiful Kraków. If you are around during this time and you’d like to meet then let me know.

We need more specialists!

September 20th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

Ms Marybeth Peters (US Register of Copyrights) is not an owner of a personal computer. It is not a problem for her to decide and discuss crucial aspects of copyright law and IT issues. More details are presented in the article available at www.news.com website. Meanwhile, as reagard to previous post there is also very interesting article available at www.torrentfreak.com website about Media Defender’s “anti-piracy tools” that have “leaked” to the Net.

Oh these leaks

September 18th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

I have to write that Media Defender has no luck with good PR and the net. More details and comments supporting my opinion are available at arstechnica.com and in hundreds of post published around the Internet. However, I was thinking about the reaction of legal advisors who are representing MediaDefender. It is well-know fact that many lawyers correspondong with operators of the infamous thepiratebay.org website faced the ironic consequence of how improper is to write to European countries citizens with claims based in the US law. The bitter response to Media Defender’s lawers is available at meganova.org website. Other comments regarding mentioned leaks are available at torrentfreak.com website.