RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/Q4/POL/1/Add.1
12 September 2000
(00-3530)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION ON ENFORCEMENT
POLAND1
Addendum
The present document reproduces further questions put to the delegation of Poland in relation
to its legislation on enforcement, and the responses given.
_______________
I. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY SWITZERLAND2
ENFORCEMENT - PROVISIONAL MEASURES
1. Do the judicial authorities in Poland have the authority to adopt, on the request of a
right holder, a provisional measure inaudita altera parte  before an action leading to a decision
on the merits of the case has been lodged?
Procedural provisions provide for provisional measures in accordance with Article 50 of the
TRIPS Agreement.  They include..
- securing of the claim of the right holder;  and- securing of evidence.The above measures can be ordered at the request of a right holder:- before an action for infringement of intellectual property rights is initiated;  or
- upon initiation of and in the course of the proceeding.
The measures ordered are liable to application within a three-day-deadline starting after a
written request is submitted to the court.  Proceedings for the grant of the above measures can be held
in camera (i.e. without the opposite party being heard).  A request must satisfy general formalrequirements set in respect of pleas and provide evidence making plausible both the claim and the
statement that refusal of the measure is likely to re sult in depriving the applicant of satisfaction of his
claim (in causing irreparable harm).
                                                     
1 As regards laws and regulations relevant to the area of enforcement as notified by Poland under
Article 63.2 of the Agreement, reference is made to documents IP/N/1/POL/1/Rev.1, IP/N/1/POL/2,
IP/N/1/POL/E/1, IP/N/6/POL/1 and Add.1.
2 In consideration of reservations made by Poland during the 1997 review with regard to certain areas
of its intellectual property legislation at that time in force and under review as well as of the announcement byPoland in 1997 of new legislation being drafted and to enter into force soon, Switzerland posed these follow-upquestions to Poland in respect of its new legislation.IP/Q4/POL/1/Add.1
Page 2
The court may adopt any measures, as it deems necessary.
The court may, pursuant to Article 739(3) of Code of Civil Procedure (0.J. 23, item 296),
make enforcement or deciding on securing the claim conditional upon payment of a security depositintended to cover other parties' potential claims.
The orders issued extra partes  are served on the absent party together with the substantiation
of the decision taken.
Appeals to the second instance are heard in the course of ordinary proceedings, cases
involving rights protected under the copyright and neighbouring rights regulations being heard withina term of seven days.
2. Under Polish patent or procedural law,  are there any restrictions for obtaining
provisional measures?  If so, what are these restrictions?
No.  There are no restrictions for obtaining provisional measures under Polish patent and
procedural law.
II. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES
3
1. Please explain how the Polish civil enforcement regime satisfies the obligation in
Article 50 of the TRIPS Agreement to afford a civil ex parte search remedy both in the law and
as applied in practice.  Please cite to the statutory provision and give examples where such
remedy has been afforded in both IP and non-IP cases.  Please cite to the statutory provision
and give examples where such remedy has been afforded in both IP and non-IP cases.
Polish intellectual property law provides for the use of provisional measures in order to
prevent an infringement of intellectual property rights.  General regulations in this respect are
provided in the Code of Civil Law of Procedure.
In order to secure claims a court may issue an interlocutory order on request (Article 730
CCLP) or ex officio  (Article 732(1) CCLP).  In a request for an interlocutory order, a written
statement of grounds is to be submitted (Article 737(1) CCLP).
The court issues an interlocutory order if the claim is found justified and non-application of
the security is likely to deprive the holder of his satisfaction.
Detailed regulations on the application of provisional measures within the meaning of the
TRIPS Agreement are provided for in the following legal acts:
Act on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights – the court may secure a claim at the request of
the party having a legal interest therein.  The applicant is expected to make plausible that failure to
secure the claim may deprive the right holder of his satisfaction.  The court may make the taking of adecision on securing the claim dependent on making an appropriate deposit (Article 80(1)(iii), (2)
and (4));
Act on Trademarks stipulates in Article 20(3) that in cases involving infringement of rights of
registration the court may order the seizure of goods, packaging and any other objects bearing the
                                                     
3  These should be considered follow-up questions to the review of Poland's legislation on enforcement
conducted in 1997 (document IP/Q4/POL/1).IP/Q4/POL/1/Add.1
Page 3
registered trademark or a trademark similar to it, and the seizure of any means used for advertising
and for marking the goods with such signs;
Additionally, in cases involving protection of geographical indications and undisclosed
information, the provisions of the Act on counteracting unfair competition in respect of interlocutoryorders apply.  Article 21(1) of the Act provides that an entity, whose interest has been threatened or
harmed may request issuance of an interlocutory order by the court prohibiting sale or other
transactions involving the goods in issue or dissemination information related thereto (advertising).
The court examines the request for securing the claim immediately.
2. Please provide statistical information related  to civil copyright, trademark, geographical
indication, industrial designs, patent, layout-designs of integrated-circuits, and trade secret
enforcement for each of the years 1998 and 1999, including the number of cases filed;
injunctions issued; infringing products seized; infringing equipment seized; cases resolved
(including settlement);  and the amount of damages awarded.
Polish courts do not keep detailed statistics as requested above.  There are only general data
available on the number of cases and they are the following:
In the field of copyright.
Year Actions
initiatedActions
initiatedClaims
initiatedAmicable
solutionsClaims
refused
1998 183 138 37 11 15
1999 161 164 58 19 24
In the field of industrial property protection:
Year Actions
initiatedActions
completedClaims
admittedAmicable
solutionsClaims
refused
1998 118 145 28 18 35
1999 109 114 28 13 18
3. Please provide statistical information relat ed to criminal enforcement in the area of
copyright piracy and trademark infringement fo r each of the years 1998 and 1999, including the
number of raids, prosecutions, convictions, and the amount of fines and/or jail terms (including
whether the fines were paid and whether the jail term was actu ally served or was suspended)
and any other information establishing that the criminal system operates effectively to deter
copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting.
See above.
4. Please describe any new initiatives that are planned to improve enforcement of
intellectual property rights in Poland, particularly initiatives to criminal enforcement.
In respect of criminal enforcement new initiati ves are undertaken within the framework of the
new Industrial Property Law.  The proposed provisions in this respect are the following:IP/Q4/POL/1/Add.1
Page 4
Article 317
Anyone who usurps another's authorship or misleads another party as to the
authorship of another's person inventive project, shall be liable to a fine, limitation of
freedom or imprisonment for a period of up to two years.
Anyone infringing in any other way, for profit-making purposes, rights of the
creator of an inventive project, shall be liable to a fine, limitation of freedom or
imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.
Article 318
Any person who, not being entitled to be granted the exclusive right, files
another's invention, utility model, industria l design or topography of an integrated
circuit in order to be granted a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration,
shall be liable to a fine, limitation of freedom or imprisonment for a period of up to
two years.
The same penalties shall incur anyone disclosing information on another's
invention, utility model, industrial design or topography of integrated circuit or
otherwise preventing another party from being granted a patent, a right of protection
or a right in registration.
If a person bound to keep the obtained information in secret has committed the
act referred to in paragraph 2 unintentionally, he shall be liable to a fine.
Article 319
Anyone marking goods with a counterfeit trademark for the purpose of
placing them on the market or placing on the market goods bearing such trademark,
shall be liable to a fine, limitation of freedom or imprisonment for a period of up to
two years.
A person committing the above acts unintentionally shall be liable to a fine.
The perpetrator who has made the offence referred to in paragraph 1 his
continuing source of proceeds or commits that offence in respect of the goods of
handsome value shall be liable to imprisonment for a period from six months to five
years.
Article 320
In case of conviction for the offence specified in Article 319(3), the court shall
decree the forfeiture, to the benefit of the fiscus, of the goods proceeding from the
offence as well as the materials, tools and technical means, which have served or havebeen intended to serve for the purpose of committing the offence;  if such materials,
tools or technical means do not belong to the perpetrator, the court may decree the
forfeiture thereof to the benefit of the fiscus.
In case of conviction for the offence specified in Article 319(1), the court may
decree the forfeiture, to the benefit of the fiscus of the goods proceeding from the
offence as well as the materials, tools and technical means, which have served or have
been intended to serve for the purpose of committing the offence, even if they do not
belong to the perpetrator.IP/Q4/POL/1/Add.1
Page 5
In case of decreeing the forfeiture referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2, Article 195
of the Executive Penal Code shall apply accordingly, the forfeiture of whatever goods
has been decreed.
Article 321
Anyone marking goods not protected by a patent, a right of protection for a
utility model or a right in registration for an industrial design, for a topography of an
integrated circuit, or for a geographical indication, with statements or signs calculated
to give the impression that the goods enjoy such protection, shall be liable to a fine or
detention.
Anyone putting on the market, or preparing or stocking for that purpose the
goods referred to in paragraph 1, or providing by announcements, communications or
otherwise, information calculated to give the impression that the goods enjoy legal
protection, while being aware of their being falsely marked, shall be liable to the same
penalties.
Article 322
Anyone putting on the market goods bearing a trademark accompanied by a
discriminant which is intended to make a false impression that he goods enjoy suchprotection, shall be liable to a fine.
Article 323
In organizational entities, the liability referred to in Articles 317(2), 318, 319,
321 and 322 shall incur a person running or managing an entity, unless the division of
responsibilities implies the liability of another person.
Article 324
Prosecution of persons committing the offences referred to in Articles 317,
318 and 319(1) and (2) shall be initiated at the injured person's request.
Cases involving the acts referred to in Articles 321 and 322 shall be decided
under the provisions governing the procedure applied in cases concerning petty
offences.
__________