This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
POLAND


the defendant’s activity did not constitute infringement of the plaintiff 's rights. It was claimed the subscriber had used an identical trademark to the trademark registered on behalf of the plaintiff, but not for identical or similar goods, but rather for goods protected by the trademark. For this reason the provisions of the Polish Law of Industrial Property and its regulation concerning infringement of trademark could not be applied. Second, according to the court, the subscriber’s activity should be considered as an advertisement for the plaintiff ’s products, leading to increased financial benefit to the plaintiff. Information on the websites represented the plaintiff ’s activity in a very positive way. Third, the court noted that Bisazza SpA could have been more careful and secured its rights by earlier registration of disputable domains. Fourth, the court highlighted that the registration and the use of all domains by the subscriber cannot be treated as act of unfair competition because the subscriber’s activities were complementary to the plaintiff ’s, not in competition with it. The plaintiff ’s business is dependent on the work of people such as the defendant. Without installers, the manufacture of mosaic would not make commercial sense. Since the business activities of the parties were not in competition, it was impossible to commit an act of unfair competition to the detriment of the plaintiff.


It’s important to note that, on the basis of the Polish Act on combating unfair competition, there is no requirement for a competitive relationship between the parties. Under this act there are, of course, legal situations in which this prerequisite has to be fulfilled, but it is not required under article 3 of the act, which contains the so-called ‘general clause’. According to this article, it is sufficient that the action is contrary to law or good practice if it threatens or infringes the interest of another entrepreneur or customer.


Finally, the court did not find anything improper in the defendant’s proposal that he was ready to transfer the domains in exchange for closer cooperation. According to the court, this proposal could only


www.worldipreview.com


maximise the plaintiff ’s profits. What’s more, the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant was an unskilled craftsman. Against this judgment, Bisazza SpA submitted a complaint for annulment of arbitration verdict with the district court in Warsaw, the Court for the Community Trademarks and Community Designs. The latter issued a judgment annulling the questioned verdict, criticised statements made by the arbitration court and indicated a number of irregularities. It is important to note that the competence of common courts in controlling the correctness of verdicts issued by arbitration courts is very limited and strictly defined. A complaint for annulment of an arbitration verdict is an extraordinary remedy of legal supervision over arbitration court judgments. The proceeding initiated as a result of this complaint has a different character than a standard proceeding before a court of second instance (it has cassation character). In such proceedings a court does not examine the merits of the dispute (if the facts warrant a ruling) or verify the correctness of the findings that were made by an arbitrary court.


All the grounds justifying the reversal of the arbitration verdict can be found in the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. One of the prerequisites (and this was quoted by the plaintiff ) is a contradiction of the general principles of legal order of the Republic of Poland.


In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged a contradiction of the fundamental principles of the Polish legal order, particularly the principle of acquired rights, the principle of a comprehensive examination of the case and the principle of consistency of legal decisions. Above all, Bisazza SpA argued that the arbitration court refused to grant protection to Community trademarks. In the verdict, the district court concluded that the interpretation of basic principles of trademark law, both national and Community, provided by the arbitration court in its verdict, showed a lack of understanding of the merits of law and lacked the ability to apply existing rules to the facts of this case.


World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2012 201


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220  |  Page 221  |  Page 222  |  Page 223  |  Page 224  |  Page 225  |  Page 226  |  Page 227  |  Page 228  |  Page 229  |  Page 230  |  Page 231  |  Page 232  |  Page 233  |  Page 234  |  Page 235  |  Page 236  |  Page 237  |  Page 238  |  Page 239  |  Page 240  |  Page 241  |  Page 242  |  Page 243  |  Page 244  |  Page 245  |  Page 246  |  Page 247  |  Page 248  |  Page 249  |  Page 250  |  Page 251  |  Page 252  |  Page 253  |  Page 254  |  Page 255  |  Page 256  |  Page 257  |  Page 258  |  Page 259  |  Page 260  |  Page 261  |  Page 262  |  Page 263  |  Page 264  |  Page 265  |  Page 266  |  Page 267  |  Page 268  |  Page 269  |  Page 270  |  Page 271