Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-industrial-property-law/art-2961-ipl/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:23:33+00:00

Document:
The Court of Conciliation for Internet Domains at the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications (the CCID) in its award of 9 March 2010 case file 74/09/PA dismissed the complaint brought by Italian company Bisazza against Polish entrepreneur Rafał Kacprzak Installation.pl from Wrocław who registered the following domain names: bisazza.pl, bisazza.com.pl and bisazza-installation.com. Bisazza claimed that the registration of .pl domains infringed on its CTM BISAZZA no. 001494590 and word-figurative CTM “BISAZZA mosaico” no. 001500248. Surprisingly, the Court did not agree with arguments provided by the Italian company and held that there was no infringement because the regulations included in the Polish Industrial Property law that did not allow for such interpretation. According to the CCID, there was no delict/tort of unfair competition as activities of both companies should be deemed as complementary. The CCID noted that Bisazza could act more carefully and it should have registered both domain names much earlier. According to the Court, by advertising products of the Italian company, Mr. Kacprzak was not acting as a cyber squatter because he did not only intend to increase his financial benefits but he was doing it in order to maximise mutual benefits. The Court also said the Mr. Kacprzak did not infringe on the company name.
Bisazza S.p.A. filed a complaint against this controversial decision. The Company claimed the arbitration award is contrary to the public policy rules established in the Republic of Poland, including the protection of acquired rights, social justice, stable and secure law, comprehensive examination of the case, consistency of legal decisions and integrity of the legal system.
The Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs (in Polish: Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie Wydział XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych) in its judgment of 20 September 2010 case file XXII GWzt 17/10 annulled the questioned award. To begin with, the Court reminded that the Polish legislator sought to strengthen the arbitration proceedings by limiting the possibility of challenge of the awards issued by courts of arbitration. The competence of common courts in controlling the correctness of awards issued by arbitration courts are very limited and strictly defined. The petition for the reversal of the arbitration award belongs to the category of special appeals. It has a cassatory character (annulment of a judicial decision is allowed only in certain cases under strict conditions). In such proceedings the Court will not examine the merits of the dispute (if the facts warrant issued ruling) or verify the correctness of the findings that were made and accepted. All the grounds justifying of the petition for the reversal of the arbitration award are included in the Article 1206 §1-2 of the Civil Proceedings Code – CPC – (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 43, item 296, with subsequent amendments.
6) a final judgment has already been made in the same case between the same parties.
2) the award is contrary to the public policy rules in the Republic of Poland (public order clause).
The Court noted that when assessing whether an arbitration award is contrary to the fundamental principles of law, the Court should take into account its content and not the correctness of the proceedings that were held before the arbitration body. The basic principles of the law underlying the assessment of the award should be understood not only as the constitutional rules but also as the general norms and rules in particular areas of law. The breach by an arbitration body of the proper substantive law justifies the reversal of the arbitration award only if the award is contrary to legal order. The arbitration body shall decide on the dispute according to the law of the legal relationship and when the parties explicitly mandated it – by the general principles of law or equity/fairness. The Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs concluded that the interpretation of basic principles of trademark law both national and Community, that was provided by the CCID in its award, shows lack of understanding of the merits of law and lack of the ability to apply existing rules to the facts of this case. The arbitration court committed various irregularities: by qualifying the rights to Bisazza trade marks as national property rights, in examining the infringement based on only one character – probably a word trade mark – without considering the reputation, by dismissing the infringement claims on the basis of facts that do not have any meaning in trademark law while failing to examine identity/similarity of the marks and signs included in Internet domains and the goods and services of each party. The court reminded the arbitrator that the rules and regulations under the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, the CTMR and the case law of the Court of Justice of the UE apply directly in disputes over infringement of the Community trade mark. These rules and regulations must be applied also by national courts including arbitration bodies. Incorrect choice of legal norms and wrongful interpretation led to an unjustified deprivation of protection which is afforded to Bisazza in relation to its trademarks. Mr Kacprzak appealed.
The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgement of 1 April 2011 case file I ACa 1087/10 overturned the judgment of the Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs. The Appellate Court found that since the CCID ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear and decide upon some of the demands made by Bisazza, and rejected them in the suit, the decision was final and could not be controlled at all by the civil courts, including the proceedings caused by an action for annulment of an arbitration award. The findings stating that the CCID had no jurisdiction, that were based on the domain names regulations issued by the Scientific and Academic Computer Network (Naukowa i Akademicka Sieć Komputerowa), did not constitute a breach of the basic principles of the law (the public order clause), because Bisazza could take these demands to a civil court. In the opinion of the Appellate Court, the District Court failed to consider whether the erroneous application of the Polish law rather than the EU by the CCID was tantamount to violation of the basic principles of the law. It could have been so, only if it had a significant impact on the content of the decision rendered by the CCID. In the opinion of the Appellate Court, however, there was no such effect in this case. The Appellate Court ruled that the relevant regulations provided in the Polish law are the result of the implementation of the Directive 89/104/EEC and its relevant provisions required for this case to be then included in the CTMR. The Court decided that the solutions provided in the Polish law are similar to those of EU legislation, and the classification of infringement of trade mark rights is done by the same rules. The Appellate Court noted that the CCID found that Mr Kacprzak used, in the course of trade, a trademark identical to a protected mark not in relation to identical or similar goods but to goods protected by this trademark. The defendant is an installer of Bisazza mosaics but not identical or similar mosaics. The CCID examined also whether or not there is an infringement of reputed trademark, however, found no such breach. The Appellate Court also ruled that the award of the CCID did not violate the rules and principles of a stable and secure law because these rules should relate to the creation of law and not its application.
Categories: Art. 10 CUC | Art. 1206 CPC | Art. 154 IPL | Art. 296(1) IPL | Art. 296(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 296(2)(iii) IPL | Art. 3(1) CUC | Art. 5 CUC | company name or firm | Directive 89/104/EEC | domain names | e-law issues | EU law | legal regulations on computer networks | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Appeallate Court | Polish Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs | Polish TLDs | Regulation 40/94.
The plaintiff, a licensee of an international figurative trade mark containing the word DAVIDOFF, sued Super-Pharm Poland for trade mark infringement. The plaintiff argued that an item sold as DAVIDOFF Cool Water Woman that was bought in Poland bore the identification number B7 1431298685 and established that this item was sold to Coty Middle East FZCO in Dubai in June 2007. The Polish company also offered to sell genuine products bearing the mark DAVIDOFF, which had production numbers removed or tampered with in order to disguise the illicit importation of goods from outside the European Economic Area without the permission of the plaintiff. The defendant refused to provide information about the distributor who supplied the disputed goods and did not comply with the Court’s order of 18 May 2009 case file XXII GWo 6/09 to provide such information, claiming a need to protect its trade secrets.
The Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs (in Polish: Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie Wydział XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych) in its judgment of 27 July 2009 case file XXII GWzt 4/09 acknowledged that the removal or alteration of the production codes is not prohibited by Community law, except for Article 13(2) of the CTMR. In this case, however, it was closely related to fraudulent marketing of goods bearing the DAVIDOFF trade mark that took place in the EEA, which indisputably constituted trade mark infringement. The Court prohibited Super-Pharm Poland Sp. z o.o. from the unlawful use of the word and figurative mark Davidoff IR-876874, namely importing, offering, marketing or stocking. However, Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH filed an appeal, because the Court dismissed the claim with regard to publishing the decision issued in the case.
The Appeallate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 1 April 2010 case file I ACa 1010/09 dismissed it and ruled that in order for the court to accept the claim for publishing a decision it is insufficient for the claimant only to invoke the contents of a provision stipulating such a form of remedy for infringement of trade mark rights. The claimant has to indicate the facts justifying the claim, prove for what specific purposes it is necessary to publish the decision, and what are the reasons for applying such additional sanction towards the respondent.
Categories: Art. 287(2) IPL | Art. 296(1) IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Appeallate Court | Polish Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs | Polish courts.
Technopol Publishing Agency filed a suit against Phoenix Press and Bauer Publishing House. Technopol requested the court to prohibit both defendants from putting on the market all magazines and periodicals bearing the number “100” or its multiples, and journals bearing the titles composed of three Arabic numerals together with the words “panorama” (in Polish: panorama) or “panoramic” (in Polish: panoramiczny), and to order the withdrawal of such publications from the market, to order the publication of an apology of specific content in the press, to order the defendants to pay the amount of 75000 PLN as compensation and the amount of 99000 PLN as unjustified benefits received by the defendants as a result of the unlawful use of Technopol’s trade marks, and to order defendants to withdraw particular trade mark applications from the Polish Patent Office. Technopol argued that it has introduced characteristic titles of crosswords magazines, presenting the number “100” or its multiples, with the words “panorama” or “panoramic” since 1994. Bauer Publishing House gave a licence to Phoenix Press to publish crosswords magazine entitled “Chwila na 100 panoramicznych”. Later on, Phoenix Press began to publish crosswords magazines with titles composed of the multiple of “100” and the “panoram” word. Technopol based its claims on articles 3, 10 and 18 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.
(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.
(2) The acts of unfair competition shall be in particular: misleading designation of the company, false or deceitful indication of the geographical origin of products or services, misleading indication of products or services, infringement of the business secrecy, inducing to dissolve or to not execute the agreement, imitating products, slandering or dishonest praise, impeding access to the market and unfair or prohibited advertising and organising a system of pyramid selling.
(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.
6) adjudication of an adequate amount of money to the determined social goal connected with support for the Polish culture or related to the protection of national heritage – where the act of unfair competition has been deliberate.
2. The court, upon a motion of the entitled party, may also adjudge on products, their packing, advertising materials and another items directly connected with commitment of the act of unfair competition. In particular, the court may order their destruction or include them on account of the indemnity.
Technopol’s claims were also based on articles 120(2) and 296(1) and (2) 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 subsequent amendments.
ii) by the payment of a sum of money at the amount corresponding to the license fee or of other reasonable compensation, which while being vindicated would have been due on account of consent given by the holder to exploit his trademark.
1a. To the claims referred to in paragraph (1) the provisions of Article 287(2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.
(iii) a trademark identical or similar to a renown trademark registered for any kind of goods, if such use without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the user or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.
Phoenix Press and Bauer Publishing House requested the court to dismiss the suit. They argued that all trade marks in question have only informational character, and they refer to the title of the magazine “Chwila dla Ciebie”, and substantially differ from plaintiff’s trade marks, which excludes the risk of confusion. The judgments of the District Court and the Court of Appeal did not satisfy any of the parties and as a consequence, both appealed.
The Supreme Court in its judgment of 24 November 2009 case file V CSK 71/09 ruled that the admissibility of a cassation complaint in matters of property rights is dependent on the minimum value of the subject matter of litigation, which in economic cases, cannot be less than 75000 PLN. The legal doctrine and the case law of the Supreme Court has expressed the view that the claims under article 18(1) points 1, 3 and 4, of the CUC have non-financial nature. See judgment of the Supreme Court of 9 March 2006, case file l CZ 12/06, and a judgment of the SC of 9 January 2008, case file II CSK 363/07. But this view has no legal justification which was the most widely expressed by the Supreme Court in the opinion of 8 March 2007, case file III CZ 12/07, published in OSNC 2008/2/26. The Court held that the claims set out in the CUC, though – according to the prevailing view – are not based on the absolute rights (enforceable against anybody infringing that right, an erga omnes right can be distinguished from a right based on a contract, which is only enforceable against the contracting party), they are directly contingent upon economic interests of persons who have the absolute right, and thus have the financial character. This view is justified by the general objective of the unfair competition law as defined in article 1 of the CUC, which is to prevent and combat unfair competition, and by provisions of article 20 of the CUC which set the same term of terminations of actions as for claims ensuing from property rights. For this reason, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint brought by Phoenix Press.
Technopol based its cassation complaint inter alia on the reputation of its trade marks. The Supreme Court ruled that according to the legal doctrine and the case law established by the SC, the distinction made between well-known and reputed trade marks is based on a different criterion. The reputation of a trade mark means its attractiveness, the value of advertising it creates and the ability to stimulate sales of goods marked with it. It is therefore a criterion referring rather to the special quality of a sign than to the degree of its knowledge. Such opinion was issued by the Supreme Court in a judgment of 7 March 2007, case file II CSK 428/06. The Supreme Court in a judgment of 12 October 2005, case file III CK 160/05, published in OSNC 2006/7-8/132, ruled that, the reputed or renowned trade mark serves as a carrier of information and ideas/opinions about high quality and high prestige. The last word is synonymous with “reputation” in Polish. However, the concept of a reputed/renown trade mark does not indicate an association with the exclusive services or goods of significant value. A renowned trade mark is a carrier of information on a specific, expected and tested quality of a sign. It includes a settled belief about the expected values of the goods, in the minds of buyers. The Supreme Court pointed out that the reputed trade mark in relation to other signs is characterized by ever stronger distinctive characteristic. Numerical trade marks owned by Technopol and registered for crosswords periodicals do not have the distinctive character. Trade marks intended to use for such periodicals have informational nature and are descriptive. They demonstrate direct and specific relationship with goods at stake which could allow its buyers to see them as a description of quantity of goods or one of their essential characteristics. In any case, a numerical trade mark placed on the cover of the magazine informs about the amount of crosswords that are appearing in the magazine and it is seen by buyers as a description of the characteristics of the goods, in particular the number of crosswords appearing in the magazine. Similarly, the word signs “panorama” or “panoramas” are used to describe the features of crosswords printed in a journal. The weak distinctive characteristic of Technopol’s trade marks that were registered for crosswords periodicals proves that these are not reputed trade marks, and there is no risk of confusion as referred to in article 296(2)(ii) of the IPL.
There was no evidence for the Court, that Technopol’s trade marks acquired the secondary meaning. On the contrary, such arguments were denied by the Court because of the use of these trade marks in such a way that they became a carrier of information about the origin of the goods. The Court confirmed that, as a general rule, it is possible for a trade mark that also serves as a press title, to acquire secondary meaning and distinctive character while performing informational function, but only taking into account all the circumstances the of use of such sign for designation of the goods.
The Court also ruled that the risk of consumers confusion as to the origin of goods, which creates the infringement of the right of protection for a trade mark, has many factors that require a comprehensive examination. The degree of knowledge of the registered trade mark, the degree of similarity between trade marks and the goods, and the circumstances in which the marked goods are sold, but also its distinctiveness should be taken into account while determining the risk of consumers confusion. According to the Court, the risk of consumers confusion was excluded because of the weak distinctive characteristic of the descriptive numerical signs, and the allegations of violation of article 296(2)(ii) of the IPL were unfounded, irrespective of any similarity between Phoenix Press and Technopol’s trade marks. Article 296(2)(ii) of the IPL applies to the infringement performed in the form of imitation, which may involve the use of an identical or similar trade mark to a trade mark registered, for the same or similar goods to these listed in the registry. The premise of violation is not only the unlawful use of a sign, but also the risk of confusion as to the origin of goods. The common knowledge of Technopol’s trade marks has not been proved and such knowledge cannot be equated with the popularity, especially as these trade mark serve for the designation of crosswords magazines that are targeted to specific audiences.
The Supreme Court also ruled that there was no violations of the provisions of the CUC related to the likelihood of consumers confusion as to the origin of the goods. The condition for the application of article. 10(1) of the CUC is decided on the factual basis. As it was noted by the Supreme Court in a judgment of 23 April 2008, case file III CSK 377/07, published in OSNC 2009/6/88, the difficulties in establishing such datum stem from the situation that it’s a fact of a legal nature and which may arise, as well as the fact that the likelihood of confusion must relate to a specific model of the consumer. According to article 10(1) of the CUC, the indication of the goods or services must have such a distinctive character so it’s illegal use would cause the likelihood of consumers confusion as to the origin of the goods. Only the use of words and numbers in a specific composition could cause such a risk. A similar opinion was issued by the Supreme Court in a judgment of 21 February 2008, recognizing that the numerical designation placed on the cover of the crosswords magazine can make the average consumer confused as to the origin of the goods, only if it is put in the place usually reserved for the title of a periodical. There was also the need for an appropriate balance between the rights and interests of different market participants, so giving due protection would not allowed to abuse their position.
The Supreme Court also noted that Technopol wrongly raised the plea of faulty decision of a case where it argued that the lower court did not take into account its claim against the defendants to withdraw given trade mark applications from the Polish Patent Office and the claim to abandon of their trademarks rights. The Court ruled that these claims relate to the rights on the existence of which decides an independent body – the Polish Patent Office. It is the PPO’s jurisdiction to decide on the invalidation of the right of protection for a trade mark at the request of any person who has a legitimate interest if it’s shown that the statutory conditions for obtaining this right have not been met. For all these reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint brought by Technopol.
Categories: Art. 10 CUC | Art. 120(2) IPL | Art. 18 CUC | Art. 296(1) IPL | Art. 296(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 296(2)(iii) IPL | distinctive character | famous trade marks | likelihood of confusion | Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Supreme Court | reputed trade marks | similarity of signs | trademark law | well known trade marks.
The plaintiff in this case was Theatermogul ehf, owner of the CTM CAVEWOMAN no. 005051545 which was registered in Class 41 for services such as theatrical performances and orchestral services, production of radio and television broadcasts and programmes. The plaintiff also owned several Polish registrations, such as KOBIETA JASKINIOWIEC, JASKINIÓWKA, W OBRONIE KOBIETY–JASKINIOWCA, W OBRONIE JASKINIÓWKI, JASKINIOWIEC, and W OBRONIE JASKINIOWCA, which are mostly translations and variations of English signs. The defendant produced a show by Sigitas Parulskisa in an adaptation by Cezary Harasimowicz entitled CAVEWOMAN-Kobieta jaskiniowa, which was widely advertised and repeatedly shown in Poland and abroad.
The plaintiff argued that it had never allowed the use of its trade marks, and called for cessation of the infringement. However, the defendant only partially complied with this request, changing the title of the show to ‘Kobieta pierwotna’ but leaving in its advertising, tickets, and website a note that this show was previously called CAVEWOMAN-Kobieta Jaskiniowa. The defendant was also still using the website www.kobietajaskiniowa.pl.
The Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs (in Polish: Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie Wydział XXII Sąd Wspólnotowych Znaków Towarowych i Wzorów Przemysłowych) in its judgment of 4 June 2009 case file XXII GWzt 3/09 ruled that the defendant’s use infringed the CTM CAVEWOMAN and prohibited the use of all trade marks owned by Theatermogul ehf in the title or subtitle of the show, advertising and promotional materials, websites, or on tickets. The Court also ordered the defendant to withdraw from circulation and destroy all promotional and advertising materials and tickets containing the CAVEWOMAN and/or KOBIETA JASKINIOWA signs in the title or subtitle of the show. A public announcement of the judgment was ordered, this to be at the expense of the defendant, in the daily editions of national newspapers.
Categories: Art. 296(1) IPL | Directive 89/104/EEC | EU law | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Court for the Community Trade Marks and Community Designs | Polish courts | Regulation 40/94 | trade mark infringement | trademark law.
The Supreme Court in its judgment of 22 February 2007 case file III CSK 300/06, held that each sign should be presented in a graphical way. This is understood in the case law as a visual perceptibility of the trade mark, i.e., a sign must be possible to be seen, even if it’s only a word trade mark, which is represented by writing letters. This case concerned the infringement of MIXEŁKO R-116044 trade mark owned by ALMAR spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością spółka komandytowa from Kraków.
Categories: Art. 120(1) IPL | Art. 120(2) IPL | Art. 129(1)(ii) IPL | Art. 296(1) IPL | Art. 296(2)(ii) IPL | descriptive character | distinctive character | Polish Supreme Court.
The Appellate Court in Poznań in its judgment of 26 April 2006, case file I ACa 1228/05, published in electronic database LEX no. 214296, ruled that in the case of a trade mark in the form of a particular word, the word representing a sign it is important, so long as it has the distinctive character and it is possible to distinguish the goods supplied or manufactured by a company from the products of another company. The appearance of a sign that may be represented by letters written in different fonts was less important in the described case. The conclusion that the only the graphic/figurative similarity between the two marks would give a plaintiff the right to assert claims arising out from article 296 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 of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments, would render the protection resulting from this provision purely illusory and would wreck the sense of norms arising from this article.
(ii) by the payment of a sum of money at the amount corresponding to the license fee or of other reasonable compensation, which while being vindicated would have been due on account of consent given by the holder to exploit his trademark.
3. The claims referred to in paragraph (1) shall also be enforceable against a person who only puts on the market the goods already bearing that trademark, provided that the goods do not originate from the right holder or from a party authorised by him to use the trademark.
4. When invoking the right of protection conferred by his trademark, the licensor may enforce the claims referred to in paragraph (1) against a licensee who breaches any provision in his licensing contract with regard to its duration and territory covered by the contract, the form covered by the contract in which the trademark may be used, as well as the scope of the goods for which the trademark may be used or the quality of the goods. This shall apply accordingly to the sub-license.
5. A holder of a right of protection for a trademark may enforce the claims referred to in paragraph (1) against a licensee or a sub-licensee in case where the provisions of the sub-license contract, referred to in paragraph (4) have been breached, as well as in the case, where the contract has been concluded in breach of Article 163(2).
The Court also held that the registration of a web site under a given domain name address, and conducting a business activity through, and also its advertising, complete the condition of “trade mark use”.
Categories: Art. 10 CUC | Art. 296(1) IPL | Art. 296(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 3(1) CUC | case law | computer law | distinctive character | domain names | Internet domains law | Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Appeallate Court | Polish TLDs | trade mark infringement | trade mark use.
Jerzy Gojawiczyński owns the word-figurative trade mark ALE KINO! R-113226, registered for advertising and printing services in Class 35 and 42. Canal + Cyfrowy Spółka z o.o. is a broadcaster of a specialized TV program called “Ale Kino”, in which the company places also ads. Mr Gojawiczyński sued for trade mark infringement.
The Supreme Court in its judgment of 17 February 2005 case file I CK 626/04 held that the use of a registered mark in the course of trade by other entrepreneurs will be deemed as a violation of the provisions of the Industrial Property Law only if it is associated with the continuity of such activity, and when it is done effectively in business, i.e. outside the company, where it can be recognized and associated by consumers. The mere use of the trade mark within the company, especially one-time use or shortly periodic, is not deemed as a trade mark infringement.
Categories: Art. 23 CC | Art. 24 CC | Art. 296(1) IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Civil Code | Polish Supreme Court | trade mark infringement | trade mark use | trademark law.

References: §1
 Art. 10
 Art. 1206
 Art. 154
 Art. 296
 Art. 296
 Art. 296
 Art. 3
 Art. 5
 Art. 287
 Art. 296
 Art. 10
 Art. 120
 Art. 18
 Art. 296
 Art. 296
 Art. 296
 Art. 296
 Art. 120
 Art. 120
 Art. 129
 Art. 296
 Art. 296
 Art. 10
 Art. 296
 Art. 296
 Art. 3
 Art. 23
 Art. 24
 Art. 296