Polish IP & IT law » unfair competition law

Archive for: unfair competition law

Internet domains and trade mark law, case I ACa 1334/07

June 17th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The District Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 August 2007, case file XVI GC 756/06 dismissed the complaint filed by “Euro–net” sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the Court of Conciliation for Internet Domains at the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications of 23 March 2006, case file 22/05/PA PDF file, in which the Court of Conciliation dismissed the “Euro-net” complaint against Rafał Falęcki in case of infringement of trade mark rights and unfair competition delict/tort concerning eurortv.com.pl domain name.

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 April 2008, case file I ACa 1334/07, DOC file, dismissed the appeal, although it also found that some of the allegations included in the complaint proved to be accurate.

The Court of Conciliation violated the adversarial rule because it has conducted an investigation of evidence ex officio, by looking on web pages and performing a search for disputed words “euro” and “rtv” in Google. The Court has not made any survey protocol or notes. This was made personally by the arbitrator without a request of both parties, however, the parties have not raised any comment to that evidence. The Court of Conciliation should issue the provision of evidence, indicating the date and place to carry out, so the parties could participate in this investigation. However, the appeal did not contain any allegations as to the veracity of the abovementioned evidence. The court may conduct investigation of evidence ex officio and on its own initiative but it should do it only in situations of an exceptional nature.

The Appellate Court did not agree with the “Euro-net” that the circumstances in which the investigation of evidence was conducted required special knowledge, and therefore should be subject to expert opinion. The Court of Conciliation made only a visual overview of the web pages of the plaintiff and the defendant, to which it was not necessary to posses special knowledge in the field of IT. The Appellate Court held that since the issue of the case was the infringement of “Euro-net” rights of protection for trade marks that was allegedly made by Rafał Falęcki in the Internet, therefore the inspection of his websites was sufficient way to determine whether and how the defendant used plaintiff’s trademarks. The expertise is not needed for such action, because a regular Internet user usually does not have such knowledge. It was a regular Internet user who could be mislead, in particular by a risk of associating the domain name with a registered trade marks, as defined in article 296(2)(ii) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.

2. Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(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;

However, there were no doubts for the Court that provisions of article 153 of the IPL mean that one cannot infringe the protection rights for a trade mark in the Internet.

Article 153
1. The right of protection shall confer the exclusive right to use the trademark for profit or for professional purposes throughout the territory of the Republic of Poland.

2. The term of the right of protection shall be 10 years counted from the date of filing of a trademark application with the Patent Office.

3. The term of protection may, at the request of the right holder, be extended for subsequent ten-year periods in respect of all or of a part of the goods.

4. The request referred to in paragraph (3) shall be submitted before the expiration of a running protection period, however not earlier than one year before the expiration thereof. The request shall be submitted together with the payment of a due protection fee.

5. The request referred to in paragraph (3) may also be submitted, against payment of an additional fee, within six months after the expiration of a protection period. The said time limit shall be non-restorable.

6. The Patent Office shall make a decision on refusal to extend the term of protection for a trademark, where the request has been submitted after the expiration of the time limit referred to in paragraph (5) or the due fees referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) have not been paid.

According to the Court, one cannot use signs (or its elements) or similar trade marks, in its Internet domain names, if its business deals with selling the same group of products. There was no question that the abovementioned rule belongs to the fundamental socio-economic principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland. However, in this case, such conditions were not met, bacuse all signs constituting “Euro-net” trade marks and used by Rafał Falęcki lack distinctive character, there was no risk of confusion, and there existed the exclusion of protection of signs as set out in article 156(1)(ii) of the IPL.

1. The right of protection shall not entitle the right holder to prohibit third parties from using, in the course of trade:
(ii) indications concerning, in particular, the features and characteristics of goods, the kind, quantity, quality, intended purpose, origin, the time of production or of expiration of usability period,

There is one thing I wanted to add. I asked the Appellate Court in Warsaw to send me the judgment via e-mail. My request was based on the Polish Act on access to public information. On 14 June 2010 I received an e-mail from the Court.

W związku z wnioskiem z dnia 11 czerwca 2010 r. o udostępnienie informacji publicznej uprzejmie informuję, że opłata za udostępnienie treści wyroku Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 16 kwietnia 2008 r. w sprawie o sygn. akt I ACa 1334/07 wraz z uzasadnieniem – zgodnie z Zarządzeniem Nr 130/09 Prezesa Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 31 lipca 2009 r. – wynosi 8 zł (1 zł za stronę) – w wersji elektronicznej. Opłatę można uiścić w kasie Sądu, znakami sądowymi lub przelewem bankowym na konto Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie nr 93 1010 1010 0404 1322 3100 0000 z dopiskiem ” informacja publiczna Adm. 0137-119/10″.

I was informed that according to the Decree No 130/09 of the President of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 31 July 2009, the fee for access to the judgment – is 8 PLN (1 PLN per page) – in the electronic version. I had no time to argue so I paid. However, as you may remember from my post entitled “E-access to public information, case I C 19/10“, price-lists and flat-rate charges for making the public information available, may violate the provisions of the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Unfair competition, case I ACa 1270/10

May 11th, 2010, Magdalena Gad

The Warsaw Court of Appeal in a judgment case file I ACa 1270/10, held that a failure to enforce one’s trademark protection can lead not only to the expiration of the protection right but even to an entire forfeiture of the right.

The unfair competition dispute between the Croatian Podravka (and its Polish daughter company – Podravka Polska) and Marina Maziarny – Hungarian producer of the equivalent of the Podravka’s spice (Węgierska Virgin Przyprawka) has been on for quite some time. The claimant in this case – Podravka, raised that the Hungarians use marks that are dangerously similar to those used by Podravka in Poland for almost 20 years. The marks in question present a cook with a bouquet of vegetables on a blue background. The respondents claimed that this type of logo had become standard in the spice industry, hence loosing any distinctiveness, primarily due to the “lack of activity on the part of the Croatians”.

Vegeta Podravka

Additionally, they raised that any potential claim the Croatians might have had, had long expired. Pursuant to article 20 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, the statute of limitation for the unfair competition claims arising under the Act shall be 3 years (very much the same as in case of trade mark infringements). In the meantime (in 2003), Podravka Polska became aware of the infringement. However, it waited to file the lawsuit for 5 years (sic!), and finally did in 2008. And because of that undue delay, the court of I instance dismissed the suit justifying that if the daughter company had been aware of the infringement, so must have had the mother company. Podravka stressed that when it came to this particular type of infringement, each and every violation (i.e. each subsequent pitch of illegally marked goods) constituted a separate infringement, from the date of which the statute of limitations ran anew. And because the last pitch of the infringing goods was sold by the respondents in 2007, the statute of limitation has not run yet. But the Court of Appeals held differently. According to the Court, it is only the very first infringement that matters when it comes to computing the 3 years’ statute of limitation. However, the Court emphasized that this should apply solely to the Polish daughter company as it could not be proved with certainty that the Croatian mother company had been aware of the infringements already back in 2003. As as result, the Court decided that this aspect of the case should be remanded for more thorough investigation.

Once again, it has been shown that the issue of the statute of limitation in unfair competition claims can be highly troublesome and complicated. It also teaches a lesson that every IP right holder should be aware of the fact that his inaction in terms of the enforcement might not only result in the expiration of the statute of limitation but also in the dilution of his right via the strengthening of the competitor’s brand.

Categories: Art. 20 CUC | Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition | Polish Appellate Court | look-alikes | unfair competition law.

Unfair competition, case III CZP 58/09

October 19th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The court of first instance held that the basic relationship linking the parties was the agreement of sale of goods defined as to its kind/sort, and therefore, the ownership of the goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant passed in the moment of their release. Therefore, the fees for marketing services and logistics were taken for actions which the defendant has taken in relation to his goods. The Court also ruled the breach of article 15(1) point 4 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 15
1. An act of unfair competition is the introduction of difficulties for other entrepreneurs to access the market through:
1) the sale of goods or services below their purchase cost in order to eliminate other entrepreneurs,
2) the enticement of third parties to refuse to sell to other entrepreneurs or to purchase goods or services from other entrepreneurs,
3) materially justified differences in the treatment of some customers,
4) collection of charges other than commercial margins for accepting goods for sale,

According to the Court the fees charged to the plaintiff limited its access to the market. If it had not give his consent, the defendant wouldn’t establish a cooperation. The Court did not found any evidence to charge fees for marketing services and for the common commercial policy.

The defendant appealed and the court of second instance having some doubts decided to request the Supreme Court to answer the question whether article 18(1) point 5 of the CUC creates an independent basis to the claim by the buyer for an improperly obtained benefits.

Article 18
1. Where the act of unfair competition is committed, the entrepreneur whose interest is threatened or infringed may request:
1) relinquishment of prohibited practices,
2) removing effects of prohibited practices,
3) making one or repeated statement of appropriate content and form,
4) repairing the damage, pursuant to general rules;
5) handing over unjustified benefits, pursuant to general rules,

The Supreme Court in a resolution of 19 August 2009, case file III CZP 58/09, held that pursuant to article 18(1) point 5 of the CUC, the party may – regardless of other claims arising from the contract – to recover improperly obtained benefits from the collection of non-commercial premium charges for the acceptance of goods for sale.

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.

Internet domains, case X GC 1245/03

October 6th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Well, as I wrote in my previous post – errare humanum est. My good friend Marcin Sochacki reminded me that there is an earlier judgment of the Polish court regarding the cybersquatting issue. It is a judgment of the District Court in Łódź, X Commercial Division of 22 June 2004, case file X GC 1245/03, Microsoft versus Robert Rudecki, it was decided in absentia. The case concerned microsoft.pl and microsoft.com.pl domain names. Unfortunately, I do not have an access to the text of this decision.

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on domain names“.

Internet domains, case I ACz 364/08

October 1st, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

I may be wrong (errare humanum est right?) but it looks like the Appellate Court in Białystok in its judgment of 6 May 2008, case act signature I ACz 364/08 decided the first Polish court’s case regarding the cybersquatting issue. The court simply ruled that, the registration and use of the Internet domain name which is the same as someone else already existing domain, may be regarded as an act of unfair competition. The definition is provided in the article 3(1) 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 3
1. The act of unfair competition shall be the activity contrary to the law or good practices which threatens or infringes the interest of another entrepreneur or customer.

The court also noted that although the act of unfair competition takes place only when the arguing entrepreneurs can be regarded as competitors. However, there are not excluded situations where a website under a disputed domain name will be providing goods or services different from those associated with a given name on the non-virtual market. Also in such situation a person may request for the protection against violations of the rights to the domain name, especially when it is registered in order to block a domain by a competitor, if it identifies an inactive website or a webpage or a website which is not updated nor offering any goods. Registration of such domains leads to a substantial impediment to market access for other entrepreneurs, which is in violation of article. 15 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 On combating unfair competition. Such actions, however, have also an economic overtone, and therefore they concern the economic rights.

Update on January 29, 2010.
Just see my post entitled “Internet domains, case X GC 1245/03“.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

Trade mark law, case I ACa 228/08

September 9th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

First, I owe my respectable readers a short explanation what Jarzebiak is.

Jarzebiak is a fruit vodka made of rowan infusion with the addition of fruit distillate and wine distilate and caramel. The drink has bright bronze colour, sometimes there is light or settlements.

One of the varieties of jarzebiak is “jarzebiak izdebnicki”, with the traditions of production reaching the sixteenth century. It is produced in Izdebnik (Lanckorona municipality). This dry vodka with the addition of rowan, herbs and young shoots of pine was also produced at Izdebnik’s manor of Archduke Rainer Habsburg in distillery called “Factory of Health Vodkas and Liquers” in XIX century.

The “Rowan Jarzebiak Vodka” brand is one of the oldest and most recognizable quality vodkas in Poland. The Company Polmos from Sieradz made this vodka as its flagship product. In April 2006, The Company Polmos from Lublin began production of its own jarzebiak. Polmos from Sieradz sued Polmos from Lublin before the civil court, arguing that Polmos Lublin was illegally using the Jarzebiak name for its products. Polmos from Sieradz based those arguments on the fact that, in 1989, the state-owned and subsequently privatized Polmos Companies were engaged in the division of the trade mark portfolio of their State’s monopolistic predecessor. The Jarzebiak Rowan Vodka brand was acquired by Polmos from Sieradz. The Company registered this mark in the Polish Patent Office in 2007, R-204893.

R-204893

Polmos from Sieradz argued that Polmos Lublin committed an act of unfair competition by exploiting the reputation of the Polmos Sieradz product, at the same time damaging the Jarzebiak brand because Polmos Lublin produced less tasteful vodka with a lower alcohol content (36 percent, while that of Polmos Sieradz was 40 percent). This in consequence also allowed Polmos from Lublin to offer a cheaper product.

Polmos Lublin considered its competitor’s arguments unfounded, arguing that jarzebiak was a generic name that identified a type of drink: a rowan-based vodka. In Polmos Lublin’s opinion, such a term could not be monopolized by any company. The Lublin company also noted that the labels of the respective vodkas were very different and argued that customers would not be misled as to which company was a producer of ‘real’ jarzebiak vodka.

Jarzebiak Lublin

The District Court and the Appellate Court agreed with Polmos from Lublin’s arguments. The Appellate Court in its judgment case file I ACa 228/08 also found that the company from Sieradz provided false information about “jarzebiak lubelski”, alleging that it was produced illegally. This counterclaim was bought by Polmos Lublin. Accordingly the company from Sieradz had to publish appropriate apology statements and announcements in “Rzeczpospolita” and “Gazeta Wyborcza” newspapers.

Categories: Class46 post | Polish Appellate Court | Polish District Court | similarity of signs | unfair competition delict.

Trade mark law, case I CSK 96/08

March 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the shade of the recent opinion of Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston QC given to the Court of Justice of the European Communities in case C‑529/07, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH, here is the story of couple of judgments decided in the recent suit brought against the Polish company Terravita by the Swiss company Chocoladenfabriken Lindt & Sprüngli, AG from Kilchberg in Switzerland.

Lindt's hare

Lindt & Sprüngli requested the Polish court to prohibit Terravita from offering, marketing or storage chocolate products with a characteristic shape of a seated hare, wrapped in metail foil with clearly marked drawings of nose, bandoline, eyes, ears and tail with bow placed on the neck. Lindt also asked the court to stop the defendant using or affixing “Terravita hare” or its image in advertising and commercial documents, and an order that the defendant withdraw the “Terravita hare” from the market, requiring the defendant to destroy all packagings, packaging designs and dies, molds and other devices intended to produce and direct wrapping the “Terravita hare”.

Terravita’s hareIn a judgment of 22 September 2005, the District Court in Warsaw (Community Trade Mark and Design Court) dismissed the action. The court held that the conditions set out in article 9(1)(b) of the CTMR were not met. In the court’s opinion “Goldhase”, “Lindt” and “Terravita” signs that appear on the respective products differentiated them significantly and hence there is no risk of consumer’s confusion. The average consumer of chocolate hares does not perceive the origin of the goods only on the basis of the shape of a hare, but also on the basis of other important and distinguishing elements, including the mark placed on the product, the color of the packaging, its price, the trade mark identifying the manufacturer. The average consumer sees the difference in colour of the packaging of chocolate hares, and these were different in this case. Lindt’s packaging of the hare has the color of gold, red and brown, and Terravita’s are in silver. In addition, the District Court indicated that according to article 159a(5) of the CTMR, the defendant has only the right to prohibit the use of a trade mark on the territory of the Republic of Poland.

Terravita's hare

Lind brought an appeal. The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 6 July 2006 case file I ACa 616/07 dismissed the case. The Court held that the shape and the colour did not inform about the origin of the goods. The form of a sitting hare, Easter eggs or bells do not have a distinctive characteristic. The court similarly assessed the coloring of the aluminum foil placed on chocolate hares. The colour of silver and gold are typical for chocolate products. In this case, the only distinctive elements of both products were sings “Goldhase Lindt” and “Terravita” and they were dissimilar. Accordingly there was no risk of consumers confusion as regards the orgin of goods.

Lind brought a cassation complaint to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland. The Court, in its judgment of 13 April 2007, case file I CSK 16/07, ordered the Appellate Court to reconsider the case. The Supreme Court has interpreted the EU law, pointing to the need for a comprehensive assessment of similarity of the disputed signs. Only such an assessment would determine whether there is a risk of confusion.

The Court of Appeal, after rehearing the case, changed its judgment in favour of Lindt. The court found that the Golden hare was introduced by Lindt on the Polish market in 1997 (16 pieces), and 240 pieces in 1998. On March 1999, Terravita purchased in Germany the same form as the form used by Lindt and began producing and marketing of chocolate hares. Therefore the disputed hares share the same shape and size. Both are packaged in foil – gold, or silver, both have a ribbon tied to the neck in bow but Terravita’s is printed on the foil and there is no bell. The Court of Appeal stated that the condition for the likelihood of confusion has been met. The court stressed that Lindt’s Gold hare is well known among consumers of chocolate products. Therefore, there was no doubt to believe that Lindt’s hare has a huge recognition among consumers of chocolate products, especially if its presence on the market was established for more than nine years. With regard to the Terravita silver hare the Court of Appeal held that, although the latter figure was produced using the same form as used by the Lindt, and thus both hares are having the same shape and size but additional drawings and elements preclude similarities.

This time, Terravita brought a cassation complaint to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland. The Court in its judgment of 3 October 2008, act signature I CSK 96/08 held that in the circumstances of this case, there is no doubt that disputed hares are not identical and only its shape is the same, since they are manufactured from the same form. However on the foil of both hares, in a prominent place, one may find adequately put signs “Lindt Goldhase” or “Terravita”, which in fact makes the likelihood of consumer confusion practically excluded.

The Supreme Court cited its earlier case law. In its judgment of 1 February 2001, act signature I CKN 1128/98 (published at OSNC 2001, No. 9, item. 136) The Supreme Court held that if word-figurative trade marks are used on the market then the word elements of such signs should have been attributed the distinvtice characteristics. In its judgment 8 April 2003, act signature IV CKN 22/01 (published at OSP 2004, No. 5, item. 61), the SC held that in case of word-figurative trade marks the word element has the distinctive characteristics because it determines the ease of assimilation and the perception by the public. In its judgment of 14 November 2003, act signature I CK 176/02 (unpublished) The Supreme Court excluded the risk of confusion in a situation where bottles used by the plaintiff and the defendant had the same shape (as in the facts of this case these bottles came from the same form), but were labeled with various word and images elements.

In conclusion, the Court held that in the case of two identical products, one of which concerns the Community trade mark, the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of article 9(1)(b) of CTMR does not exist, if the other characteristics of goods, in particular bearing the word or image, allow them to be clearly distinguished.

Thou shall not infringe trade marks

January 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

A new advertising agency has posted on its website a presentation of “the Decalogue ads”. The animation was done in Flash technology and it presented Apple’s trademark with “You shall have no other gods before me” sentence, Volvo trade mark with “You shall not kill”, Winiary trade mark “You shall not commit adultery”, Gerda trade mark “You shall not steal”. One of the founders of the agency said.

We did not want to offend anyone, but merely to rouse a debate in the industry. We did not ask advertisers about their opinion because we were acting in good faith and hoping for their high culture.

Well… I guess they should ask lawyers regarding articles 153 and 154 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 on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.

Chapter 5
Rights of Protection for Trademarks

Article 153
1. The right of protection shall confer the exclusive right to use the trademark for profit or for professional purposes throughout the territory of the Republic of Poland.
(…)
Article 154
The use of a trademark shall, in particular, consist of:
(…)
(iii) using the trademark in advertising.

Some stats

November 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In Poland, all infringement cases in the field of industrial property, copyright and unfair competition are decided by civil courts. The number of cases in the first half of 2008, was as follows:
1. Circuit Courts (first instance):

Industrial Property, the courts’ statistic symbol 034 – total: 25 cases.
Copyright, the courts’ statistic symbol 033 – total: 117 cases.
Unfair competition, the courts’ statistic symbol 652 – total: 93 cases.
Cases under the scope of protection of trademarks and designs, the courts’ statistic symbol 653 – total: 89 cases.

2. Courts of Appeal (second instance):

Industrial Property, the courts’ statistic symbol 034 – total: 5 cases.
Copyright, the courts’ statistic symbol 033 – total: 34 cases.
Unfair competition, the courts’ statistic symbol 652 – total: 24 cases.
Cases under the scope of protection of trademarks and designs, the courts’ statistic symbol 653 – tota:l 24 cases.

Categories: Polish law | copyright law | industrial property law | unfair competition law.

Polish patent attorneys, case III CSK 337/07

October 29th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

As you already know, the Polish Supreme Court in a judgment of 16 October 2004, case file CK III 580/03, published in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Civil Chamber (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Izba Cywilna) of 2005/9/164/109, recognized the scope of representation for matters relating to unfair competition quite narrowly with regard to Polish patent attorneys’ profession.

Fortunately, there is a judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 13 March 2008, case file III CSK 337/07. The Court was very brief and set a clear rule in one important sentence.

Patent attorney may be a representative in each case relating to unfair competition.

This case was brought before the Supreme Court by Unilever Polska. The company sued Przedsi_biorstwu Produkcji Lodów “Koral” – Józef K for unfair competition. The defendant ran an advertising lottery promoted under the slogan “million ice creams to win”, which in Unilever’s opinion breached the unfair competition law, because the advertising slogan could mislead customers as to the origin of goods in such a way that it might prompt them to unconsciously purchase the goods promoted by the opposite party. At about the same time Unilever was running a similar advertising campaign. The court of first instance rejected Unilever’s complaint. The Court of Appeal agreed with the court of lower instance and also rejected Unilever’s claim that the plaintiff cannot be represented by a patent attorney in unfair competition proceedings which do not directly concern IP rights.

The Supreme Court provided detailed analysis of Article 2 of the Law on Patent Attorneys. According to the Court, extensive interpretation should be applicable, which means that it would be difficult to rationally evaluate unfair competition cases, due to their diversity, so that one can tell where a patent attorney can and cannot act as an agent. According to the Court, conducting a case against unfair competition in connection with IP matters requires full knowledge about combating unfair competition proceedings. Therefore, it would be against the law to prevent patent attorneys from being involved in all unfair competition proceedings. The Supreme Court’s arguments were also based on the fact that the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property explicitly defines IP issues in the broadest possible sense. The definition of the protection of industrial property also covers combating unfair competition.

Unfair commercial practices, case DOK-6/2008

September 4th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In December 2005, the OCCP instituted antitrust proceedings against ZAiKS and the Polish Filmmakers Association (SFP), suspecting that – in order to maximise their profits – these organisations had made an agreement and fixed uniform charges for using audiovisual works and refused to negotiate their rates.

Penalties for a total of more than $ 1.2 million Polish złoty were imposed by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) on The Association of Authors (ZAiKS) and the Polish Filmmakers Association (APF) because of their agreement “to eliminate competition between them”.

UOKiK has found that since 2003, ZAiKS and SFP, seeking to guarantee itself the highest profits, have operated under the unlawful antitrust agreement. SFP and ZAiKS concluded an agreement which established a uniform, rigid rates for the use of audiovisual works (such as DVD movies) and refused to negotiate them – announced Malgorzata Krasnodębska-Tomkiel (the President of the UOKiK) at a press conference in Warsaw.

The decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of 29 August 2008, case file DOK-6/2008 The official press release is available at uokik.gov.pl website, in Polish language.

Poland: TESCO’s advertising was misleading

January 17th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Tesco Poland published a camcorder advertising leaflet in 2006. Consumers were informed that some models available in Tesco stores had colour viewfinders which in reality turned out to be black-and-white. The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection started a proceeding against Tesco Poland. The company issued a statement conceding that it did a mistake but that this mistake resulted from false information sent by a producer of the equipment. Tesco’s legal advisers also declared that well-informed consumer would not be misled by such promotional material. However, the Polish Court of Competition and Consumer Protection in Warsaw ruled that, according to Polish regulations, violation of rules of “due care” is a sufficient factor to determine liability for the delict of unfair competition.

Poland: unfair commercial practices

December 30th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Act of 23 August 2007 on Combating Unfair Commercial Practices – CUCP – (in Polish: ustawa o przeciwdziałaniu nieuczciwym praktykom rynkowym) published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 171, item 1206, came into force on 21 December 2007. It implemented the Directive 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450, Directives 97/7, 98/27 and 2002/65 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (“Unfair Commercial Practices Directive”).

Among others things, it defines in article 5(1) misleading commercial practices as actions connected with introduction of products into the market which may lead to mistake as regards to products, its packaging, trade marks, trade names or other signs capable of identifying entrepreneurs, particularly comparative advertising.

The Act also deals with crypto-advertising which is defined as using commentary content in mass-media sources to promote a product where the business/entrepreneur paid for such action but it is not clearly indicated in the content, images or sounds and it is not easily identified by the consumer.

The Act also covers aggressive commercial practices. It defines such actions as (i) onerous processes which are not connected with consumers’ actions or (ii) desisting from acting, i.e. inducing the purchase of products via phone, fax, electronic mail or other means used to communicate in distance.

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.