Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/2009/02/
Timestamp: 2019-12-14 16:15:24
Document Index: 681652331

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 23', 'Art. 24', '§ 2', '§ 2', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 212', 'Art. 216', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 102', 'Art. 104']

Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » 2009 » February
Personal rights, case III CZP 17/86
February 25th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Supreme Court in a judgment of 10 November 1986, case file III CZP 17/86, published in OSNCP 1987, No. 10, item 145, ruled that the circumstances excluding the unlawfulness of an infringement of personal rights/interests include: the exercise of personal rights, the consent of a harmed person. It should be noted, however, that the consent as a condition repealing the illegality, applies if its expression does not affect either existing legislation or the rules of the application of a consent.
Categories: Art. 23 CC | Art. 24 CC | case law | personal rights or interests | Polish Civil Code | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Supreme Court | review.
Criminal law, case III KK 234/07
February 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
The Supreme Court Criminal Chamber in its judgment of 7 May 2008 case file III KK 234/07 held that the freedom of the press and other means of social communication that are guaranteed in the Article 14 of the Polish Constitution, also include mass media communication, as referred to in 216 § 2 i 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The Court noted that Internet is deemed as a means of mass communication, whereby the offender may commit both the defamation and insult. The case concerned defamation via the Internet. The investigation established only a computer that was used to commit this type of offence. The Court observed that it is not possible to automatically connect a computer with a perpetrator. The Court ruled that there is a possibility to establish and determine the IP address to identify the owner of a specific computer, which has been used for defamatory or insulting actions, but there is no possibility to indicate who used such computer, if adequate evidence was not collected, and if the owner does not indicate the person who committed the offence. Sharing a computer with a third person is not a wrongful act. It is impossible in the current state of the law to recognize that the mere act of sharing of a computer with a third person results in criminal liability of its owner.
Categories: Art. 14 Constitution | Art. 212 CRC | Art. 216 CRC | criminal law | defamation | e-law issues | legal regulations on computer networks | Polish Constitution | Polish Criminal Code | Polish Supreme Court.
Trade mark law, case Sp. 421/07
February 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
On 18 April 2002 Polish entrepreneur Zaklady Chemiczne EMICHEM Michal Mierzwa from Poznan applied to register the word-figurative trade mark JAX in class 3 for goods such as washing preparations, body and hair care preparations, windshield preparations and washers, car-care preparations, stain removers, softening and bleaching preparations. The Polish Patent Office registered this trade mark R-171570 in its decision of 16 March 2006.
Colgate-Palmolive Company, a Delaware corporation, New York (US), filed a request to invalidate the right of protection based on article 132(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, 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 subsequent amendments.
(ii) is identical or similar to a trade mark for which a right of protection was granted or which has been applied for protection with an earlier priority date (provided that the latter is subsequently granted a right of protection) on behalf of another party for identical or similar goods, if a risk of misleading the public exists, in particular by evoking associations with the earlier mark.
The US company claimed earlier word-figurative trade mark registration AJAX Floral Bouquet R-135207. Colgate-Palmolive argued that there exist a high a risk of misleading the public because the disputed trade marks shared visual, aural and conceptual similarities.
The PPO accepted Colgate-Palmolive’s arguments and invalidated JAX trade mark in its decision of 20 February 2009, act signature Sp. 421/07.
Categories: Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Patent Office | similarity of goods | similarity of signs | trade mark invalidation | trademark law.
Industrial design, case VIII SA/Wa 332/08
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 February 2009 case file VIII SA/Wa 332/08 ruled that not every method of disclousure of an industrial design is relevant, as it provides the opportunity to familiarize with it to persons acting in a professional manner in the same sector. It must be remembered that in accordance with the views of the legal doctrine and commentators, this possibility must be a real, materially relevant, and therefore it has to occur in circumstances that allow to assume the actual knowledge, which is the result of normal proffesional activity, specialized in the given sector. Therefore, it is not about the mere fact of disclosure of a design, but about whether specific people have actually an opportunity to get acquainted with the design.
This case concerned the industrial design “Podstawa słupa” (in English: column base), Rp-6991. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
Categories: Art. 102 IPL | Art. 104 IPL | industrial designs | novelty of an industrial design | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
Telecommunication law, case I CSK 332/08
February 9th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
The judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 5 February 2009, case file I CSK 332/08 has been aptly commented in the title of Rzeczpospolita’s article “It is not allowed to set traps for subscribers“. Judge Krzysztof Pietrzykowski pointed out that the judgment is also about the prevention, because such cases may still occur. The operator, which benefits from providing customers with high-rate services has an obligations/duty to protect its subscribers against such traps. The principle should be different than the one that was used by TP SA (Telekomunikacja Polska S.A.). The blockade for such services should not be set on the customer’s request, it should be established by default and removed at customer’s request.
Categories: computer law | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Supreme Court | telecommunication law.
Polish case law on advertising of pharmaceuticals
February 1st, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki
Below you will find a list of judgments and decisions on advertising of pharmaceuticals. You can find a more detailed discussion on each judgment or decision under the link provided with the case file. All judgments and decisions are given in chronological order.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw case file VI SA/ Wa 1136/10.
– The decision of the the Main Pharmaceutical Inspector of 10 March 2010, no. GIF-P-R-450/141-4/ZW/09/10.
– The decision of the the Main Pharmaceutical Inspector of 4 March 2010, no. GIF-P-R-450/147-3/ZW/09/10.
– The decision of the the Main Pharmaceutical Inspector of 6 January 2010, no GIF-P-R-450/126-3/ZW/09/10.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 March 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 2110/09.
– The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 10 March 2010, case file II GSK 461/09.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 18 December 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1758/09.
– The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 June 2008, case file II GSK 199/08.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 17 June 2008, case file VII SA/Wa 556/08. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 3 October 2007 case file VII SA/Wa 1157/07.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 29 December 2005 case file I SA/Wa 584/05.
– The judgment of the of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 2 October 2007, case file II CSK 289/07, published in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Civil Chamber (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Izba Cywilna) of 2008, No 12, item 140, p. 54.
See also “Polish regulations on pharmaceutical trade marks“.
Categories: advertising law | case law | pharmaceutical products advertising | Polish Act on Pharmaceutical Law | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | Polish Supreme Court | review | Voivodeship Administrative Court.