<?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; slavish imitation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/unfair-competition-law/unfair-competition-delict/slavish-imitation/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>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:38:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<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 I CSK 96/08</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/03/20/4403/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/03/20/4403/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[famous trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments of Court of Justice of the EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knock-offs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[look-alikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-traditional trade marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Appeallate Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish District Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product packaging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation 40/94]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slavish imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition delict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[well known trade marks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 &#038; Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH, here is the story of couple of judgments decided in the recent suits brought against the Polish company Terravita by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/03/20/4403/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unfair competition, case V CSK 162/08</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/12/14/6264/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/12/14/6264/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:19:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 13 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knock-offs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[look-alikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic copying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slavish imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition delict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6264</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 October 2008 case file V CSK 162/08 interpreted the provisions of Article 13 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 subsequent amendments. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/12/14/6264/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unfair competition law, case I CKN 1319/00</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/12/07/6762/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/12/07/6762/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 13 CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 3(1) CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knock-offs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[look-alikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic copying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slavish imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition delict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unnamed delict]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lego system A/S, Lego Trading A/S, Kirkbi A/S from Denmark and Lego Polska spólka z o.o. sued Polish companies &#8220;COBERT&#8221; spólka z o.o. and &#8220;COBI&#8221; for unfair competition (the delict of imitating a product) based on regulations included in article 13 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/12/07/6762/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unfair competition case, V CSK 311/06</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2007/05/11/3813/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2007/05/11/3813/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 18:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 3(1) CUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knock-offs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[look-alikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic copying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parasitic imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slavish imitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition delict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unnamed delict]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=3813</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court in a 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 one produced by another manufacturer, if the attraction of the attention of customers was caused by the similarity [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2007/05/11/3813/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

