<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Polish IP &#38; IT law - copyright trademark computer internet telecomm &#187; unfair competition law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/unfair-competition-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rychlicki.net/en</link>
	<description>Tomasz Rychlicki Intellectual Property Law Internet Law IT Law Computer Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:02:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case IV CSK 231/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/10/27/5922/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/10/27/5922/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 10 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 120(2) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 5 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-traditional trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Industrial Property Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[single colour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition delict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5922</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court in its judgment of 21 October 2010 case file IV CSK 231/10 held that the combination of colors may serve as a trademark but the entrepreneur, who is entitled to the right of protection, cannot prohibit the use of one of such colors that is used by another entrepreneur in its trade [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/10/27/5922/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 203/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/10/11/5706/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/10/11/5706/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 107 §3 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 164 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 20 Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 22 Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 315 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 4 TMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7(1) TMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7(2) TMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 77 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 8(1) TMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 80 APC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctive character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generic sign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genuine use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knock-offs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[look-alikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic copying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slavish imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5706</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish company INTERKOBO Sp. z o.o. filed a request for the invalidation of the right of protection for &#8220;kucyk pony&#8221; R-139097 trade mark registered for HASBRO POLAND Sp. z o.o. Kucyk means &#8220;pony&#8221; in Polish language. INTERKOBO argued that it has the legitimate interest in the invalidation proceedings because it is a manufacturer of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/10/11/5706/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade mark law, case V CSK 293/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/09/02/5087/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/09/02/5087/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:29:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 10 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 20 APL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 746 §1 CPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal rights or interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Press Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Civil Proceedings Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press title]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product packaging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition delict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=5087</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Polish company Technopol sp. z o.o. succeeded to register in the Polish Patent Office over a hundred word and word-figurative trade marks in the form of Arabic numeral &#8220;100&#8243; and its multiples (200, 300, etc.) together with the word &#8220;Panoramicznych&#8221; or &#8220;Panoram&#8221;. Technopol was sued by another Polish entrepreneur, Roman Oraczewski who publishes crossword magazines [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/09/02/5087/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Internet domains, case I ACa 1334/07</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/06/17/4091/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/06/17/4091/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 15(2) API]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 153 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 156 IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 296(2)(ii) IPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 3(1) CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 5(2) API]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 7(2) API]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet domains law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal rights or interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on access to public information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Appeallate Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish District Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish TLDs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition delict]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4091</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The District Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 August 2007, case file XVI GC 756/06 dismissed the complaint filed by &#8220;Euro–net&#8221; 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, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/06/17/4091/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unfair competition, case I ACa 1270/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/05/11/3797/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/05/11/3797/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 15:22:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Magdalena Gad</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 20 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[look-alikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Appeallate Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=3797</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Warsaw Court of Appeal in a judgment case file I ACa 1270/10, held that a failure to enforce one&#8217;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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/05/11/3797/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

