In Poland, a trademark may be any sign that enables to distinguish the goods and services of one enterprise from the goods and services of another enterprise and may be presented in the register of trademarks in a way that allows for the determination of an unambiguous and precise subject of the protection granted.
A protection right may be granted for a trademark. The right to protect a trademark facilitates seeking protection – from evidence point of view – of one’s name or product name in court.
To be eligible for protection, they must simultaneously meet two cumulative criteria:
There can be distinguished different types of trademarks. The most common are word, graphic, word-graphic, spatial, positional and sound signs; color; pattern; movable; multimedia; holograms and other types of trademarks not listed here.
It does not preclude the recognition as a trademark of a sign intended for simultaneous use by several persons, including entrepreneurs who applied for it jointly, if such use is not contrary to the public interest and is not intended to mislead the recipients, in particular as to the nature, intended use, quality, characteristics or origin of the goods.
An organization with the capacity to acquire rights and incur obligations on its behalf, established to represent the interests of entrepreneurs, and a legal person operating under public law may obtain a right of protection for a collective trademark. A collective trademark is intended to distinguish goods – in the case of:
1) organization – its members,
2) a legal person operating under the provisions of public law – persons authorized to use the trademark on the basis of the regulations governing the use of the trademark
– from goods of other enterprises.
The application shall be deemed to have been made on the day on which it was received by the Patent Office. Priority to obtain a right of protection for a trademark is granted in the Republic of Poland under the terms set out in international agreements, according to the date of the first correct application of the trademark, if the application with the Patent Office is made within 6 months from that date.
The business name of the company, contrary to the common meaning, is only the registered designation of the company.
The entrepreneur operates under the business name, which is disclosed in the relevant register, unless separate provisions provide otherwise.
The entrepreneur’s business name should be sufficiently distinguishable from the business names of other entrepreneurs operating on the same market. The business name cannot be misleading, in particular as to the person of the entrepreneur, the object of the entrepreneur’s activity, place of activity, sources of supply.
The business name of a natural person is his or her name. This does not preclude the inclusion of a pseudonym or terms indicating the subject of the entrepreneur’s activity, place of its conduct and other freely chosen terms.
The business name of a legal entity is its name. The business name contains the legal form of the legal person, which may be abbreviated, and may also indicate the subject of activity, seat of this person and other freely chosen terms.
The business name as designation cannot be sold. An entrepreneur may authorize another entrepreneur to use its business name, if this is not misleading.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI advises at all stages of trademark protection, including assistance in preparing and filing lawsuits for discontinuation of activities threatening the right to the business name of a company
An entrepreneur whose right to the business name of the company has been threatened by someone else’s action may demand that the action be discontinued, unless it is not unlawful. In the event of a breach, the entrepreneur may also demand that effects of such infringement be removed, that a statement or statements be made in the appropriate content and form, that the material damage be repaired under general terms or that the benefit obtained by the person who committed the infringement be handed over.
An act of unfair competition is such designation of an enterprise that may mislead customers as to its identity by using the business name of the company, emblem, letter abbreviation or other characteristic symbol previously used, in accordance with the law, to designate another enterprise.
If the designation of an enterprise with the entrepreneur’s name may mislead customers as to its identity with another enterprise that previously used a similar designation, this entrepreneur should take measures to eliminate the risk of misleading third parties.
At the request of the person concerned, the court will issue a ruling ordering the entrepreneur who later started to use the designation to take appropriate preventive measures, in particular by introducing changes to the designation of the enterprise, limiting the territorial scope of using the designation or using it in a specific way.
In the event of an act of unfair competition, an entrepreneur whose interest has been threatened or infringed upon, may request:
1) to refrain from unlawful activities;
2) removing the effects of prohibited activities;
3) submitting a single or multiple declaration with appropriate content and in an appropriate form;
4) repairing the damage caused, under general terms;
5) issuing unjustified benefits, under general terms;
6) adjudication of an appropriate amount of money for a specific social aim related to supporting Polish culture or protection of national heritage – if the act of unfair competition was culpable.
Issues related to the company are regulated in the provisions of Art. 431 et seq. of the Polish Civil Code. Pursuant to Article 432 § 1 of the Polish Civil Code, the entrepreneur operates under the business name of the company.
In Polish law, it is assumed that the “business name of the company” is not only the designation under which the entrepreneur operates. Therefore, due to the fact that the structure of the sign in the form of a company is based on the so-called body of the company – its essential part (core) and optional extras, the business name of the company can perform various functions:
| individualizing, |
| informative, |
| warranty, |
| advertising. |
It should be noted that Polish law provides for separate protection of the right to a business name in Art. 4310 of the Polish Civil Code. It is assumed that this provision defines the means of protection of the absolute, effective erga omnes right to the business name. The regime of the protection of the right to a business name is autonomous and separate from the regime of protection of personal rights of natural persons (Article 24 of the Polish Civil Code) and legal persons (Article 43 of the Polish Civil Code).
In the light of article 4310 of the Polish Civil Code, it is presumed that an action leading to a threat or violation of the right to the business name of the company is an unlawful act. However, it is the entity claiming the protection that bears the burden of proving that its right has been violated (the general principle of the burden of proof resulting from Article 6 of the Polish Civil Code).
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI advises foreign entities in proving the fact that the right to a business name of the company is at risk. In particular, this applies to a situation where the unauthorized use of the business name of the company in Poland by another entrepreneur leads to unjustified profits from the investment expenditure of the entitled person for advertising or jeopardizes the reputation of the authorized entity. With the threat referred to in Art. 4310 of the Polish Civil Code, there must be a real risk of violating the rights to the business name of the company.
1/ the foreign client has the right to the business name of the company and that its business name of the company is at real risk of infringement;
2/ there has been fulfilled the condition in the case that there took place the occurrence of an act of infringement of the right to the business name, which is the emergence of a risk of misleading recipients as to the identity with another enterprise, as well as to organizational, economic and legal relationships between the two enterprises.
As a consequence, an entrepreneur who demands the protection of its company business name in conflict with a trademark should prove that its company business name is known to domestic recipients of specific goods, and in this respect KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI provides complex and comprehensive legal support and guidance to international clients.
Also based on the above argumentation of the substantive right to protect the company business name, KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI represents foreign entities before the Polish patent office in the so-called opposition proceedings in granting the right of protection for a trademark. The entity claiming protection of the right to the company business name in such proceedings pursuant to Article 1321(1) of the Polish Industrial Property Law should prove that it is entitled to such a right, taking into account the previous use of the company business name on the market to the extent colliding with the list of goods and services within the submitted trademark. These conditions determine the finding of infringement of the right to the company business name (or threat of infringement) by submitting a trademark application, if there are no conditions excluding the unlawfulness of such infringement.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI prepares and submits trademark applications
Such application should indicate which specific trademark (only one trademark can be submitted in one application) is being registered and indicate the goods for which the trademark is intended. In the case of colored marks, a mark covering one set of colors is considered to be one trademark.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI prepares regulations for the use of the trademark
In order to be able to apply for a trademark, it is also necessary to draw up regulations for its use. KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI offers its support to clients in this regard.
These regulations must contain specific elements:
– the rules of using the trademark, in particular the consequences of violating the provisions of the regulations,
– persons authorized to use the trademark or conditions of membership in an organization that brings together persons having a common right of protection to a trademark,
– persons entitled to use the collective trademark,
Also in this case, in order to apply for a guarantee trademark, it is mandatory to develop regulations for its use.
These regulations must contain specific elements:
– the rules of using the trademark, in particular the consequences of violating the provisions of the regulations,
– persons authorized to use the trademark,
– the properties to be certified with the trademark and the method of testing these properties,
– the method of supervising the use of the trademark.
Until the decision is issued, it is possible to make additions or corrections to the trademark application. Such changes may not, however, alter the essence of the trademark or extend the list of goods for which the trademark is applied for.
If, after the initiation of the procedure, the applicant introduced additions or corrections to the trademark application that are not permitted by the provisions of the Industrial Property Law Act, the Patent Office shall issue a decision refusing to take into account such additions and corrections.
The Patent Office shall immediately announce in the “Bulletin of the Patent Office” about the application for a trademark which has not been found to lack the conditions required to obtain a right of protection for a trademark due to reasons for which such protection has not been granted, referred to in Art. 1291 , Art. 1361 and Art. 1363 of the Industrial Property Law. Prior to this announcement, but not later than within 2 months from the date of application, the Patent Office shall disclose information about the trademark, priority date, date and number of the application, list of goods and services, name and surname or business name of the applicant, its place of residence or registered office and country code.
Such objections must be raised within the irretrievable period of 3 months.
The right to file such objection is granted to the holder of the earlier trademark, the holder of the earlier personal or property right, and the person entitled to exercise the rights arising from a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication.
A fee must be paid for the objection.
The Industrial Property Law Act defines the requirements that the objection shall meet. The objection includes the designation of the parties, an indication of the factual and legal basis with the justification and scope of the objection, and the signature of the opposing party.
The parties to the opposition proceedings are the applicant and the opponent. The President of the Patent Office shall appoint an expert to examine the objection.
The Patent Office shall immediately notify the applicant of the objection files and inform the parties to the proceedings about the possibility of settling the dispute amicably within 2 months from the date of delivery of the information. Exceptionally, the Office may extend the deadline to 6 months.
After the expiry of the period, which is generally 2 months, the Patent Office calls on the applicant to respond to the opposition within the prescribed period. In response to the objection, the applicant presents the allegations and cites all the facts and evidence in support of them.
The applicant may allege genuine failure to use the earlier trademark for a continuous period of 5 years prior to the date of filing of the application for the opposing trademark for the opposing goods, unless there are valid reasons for such failure or the period of 5 years has not expired from the date of registration of the earlier trademark.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI assists in preparing and submitting letters on behalf of the objecting party in order to respond to the content of the reply to the opposition
The Patent Office shall provide the opposing party with a response to the opposition and set a time limit for this party to take a position and supplement the evidence.
The Patent Office of the Republic of Poland conducts proceedings on the protection of international trademarks within the territory of the Republic of Poland, within the scope provided for in the bilateral or multilateral Agreement or the Protocol based on the international patent law.
The Patent Office, after receiving information from the International Bureau on the designation of an international trademark in the territory of the Republic of Poland, immediately announces this designation in the “Patent Office Bulletin”.
If the conditions required for recognition of international trademark protection in the territory of the Republic of Poland are found to be missing, the Patent Office shall submit to the International Bureau, in the manner, form and language provided for in the Agreement or the Protocol, a note in which it notifies of the reasons preventing recognition of international trademark protection in the territory of the Republic of Poland, and set a time limit for the holder of the international trademark registration to take a position on the case.
Third parties may submit comments as to the existence of circumstances that result in refusal to grant the right of protection to a trademark.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI prepares and submits objections to the designation of an international trademark in the territory of the Republic of Poland
Such an objection may be lodged within 3 months.
The persons entitled to raise such an objection are the holder of the earlier trademark or the holder of the earlier personal or property right.
In the event of an objection to the designation of an international trademark on the territory of the Republic of Poland, the Patent Office shall submit to the International Bureau, in the manner, form and language provided for in the Agreement or the Protocol, a note on the reasons that may prevent recognition of the protection in whole or in part.
After the expiry of the time limit for filing an objection, the Patent Office issues a decision on recognition of the protection of an international trademark in the territory of the Republic of Poland, unless it has found that there are no conditions required for recognition of the protection of an international trademark in the territory of the Republic of Poland.
After the final conclusion of all opposition proceedings, the Patent Office refuses to recognize the protection of an international trademark in the territory of the Republic of Poland to the extent in which the objections were found to be justified, and recognizes the protection of the international trademark in the territory of the Republic of Poland in the remaining scope.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI draws up and submits complaints to the administrative court regarding the refusal to recognize international trademark protection in the territory of the Republic of Poland or against the decision to invalidate the recognition of international trademark protection in the territory of the Republic of Poland
By obtaining the right of protection, one acquires the right to exclusive use of the trademark for profit or professional purposes throughout the territory of the Republic of Poland.
The right of protection for a trademark facilitates the evidentiary investigation in the court of protection of one’s name or the name of a product. Without this, such protection is also possible, but this is then carried out through competition protection and the proceedings concern infringement of competition under the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection.
The grant of a right of protection for a trademark is confirmed by issuing a certificate of protection for a trademark. The entitled person may indicate that his or her trademark has been registered by placing the letter “R” in a circle next to the mark.
The term of protection for a trademark is 10 years from the date of filing a trademark application with the Patent Office. The protection right for a trademark is extended for a further 10 years of protection, provided that the fee for the further period of protection is paid.
The use of a trademark consists in particular in:
1) placing this trademark on goods covered by the protection right or on their packaging, offering and placing these goods on the market, importing or exporting them, and storing them for the purpose of offering and marketing, as well as offering or providing services under this trademark;
2) placing the trademark on documents related to the placing of goods on the market or related to the provision of services;
3) using it for advertising purposes.
The right of protection for a trademark does not extend to activities related to goods with the trademark, consisting in particular in offering them for sale or further marketing of goods marked with this trademark, if these goods have previously been placed on the market in the territory of the Republic of Poland by the authorized entity or upon the latter’s agreement.
The right of protection for a trademark does not give the proprietor the right to prohibit the use in trade by other persons of:
(1) their names or addresses where those persons are natural persons;
2) indications that are not distinctive or that relate to the type, quality, quantity, intended use, value, geographical origin, date of manufacture or other characteristics of the goods;
3) a registered mark/designation or a similar mark, if it is necessary to indicate the purpose of the goods, especially when it comes to offered spare parts, accessories or services;
4) a registered geographical indication, if the right to use it by these persons results from other provisions of the Act.
The joint holder of the right of protection for a trademark may, without the consent of the other joint holders, use the trademark on his own and pursue claims for infringement of the protection right.
The right of protection for a trademark is transferable and inheritable. The right of protection for a trademark may be transferred to several persons as a joint right of protection.
Such an application can be filed if the trademark does not meet the conditions that must be met in order to obtain such a protection right.
An application for invalidation of a protection right cannot be made in the following circumstances:
1) due to conflict with an earlier mark or due to infringement of the applicant’s personal or property rights, if the applicant, being aware of its use, did not object to it for five consecutive years of use of the registered mark;
2) if a trademark has been granted protection in violation of Art. 1291 sec. 1 items 2-4 of the Polish Industrial Property Law, and by the date of submission of the application this trademark has acquired, as a result of its use, a distinctive character in ordinary trading conditions;
3) due to conflict with a well-known trademark, if, for a period of five consecutive years of using the registered trademark, the holder of the well-known trademark, being aware of its use, did not oppose it;
4) if the objection based on the same earlier rights and on the same legal grounds has been legally dismissed.
An application for a revocation of a protection right under an earlier trademark may not be filed where, on the filing date or the prior priority date of the later trademark:
1) an earlier trademark that did not meet the conditions specified in art. 1291 sec. 1 items 2-4 of the Polish Industrial Property Law Act, has not yet acquired a distinctive character;
2) the earlier trademark has not yet acquired sufficiently distinctive character to allow for the determination of the risk of misleading the public, provided that this provision constitutes the basis for an application for a declaration of invalidity;
3) the earlier trademark has not yet acquired a reputation, provided that this provision is the basis for an application for a declaration of invalidity.
A trademark protection right expires as a result of:
1) expiry of the period for which it was granted;
2) renunciation of the right by an authorized person before the Patent Office, with the consent of the persons who are entitled to it;
3) non-use of the registered trademark.
The Polish Patent Office shall reject the application for revocation of the protection right in the case of non-use of the trademark, if prior to the submission of the application, the actual use of the trademark has started or has been resumed. Commencement or resumption of the use of a trademark after the expiry of a continuous five-year period of non-use and in the period of three months preceding the filing of the application for revocation of the right of protection will not be taken into account if preparations for the commencement or resumption of the use take place immediately after the proprietor became aware of the fact that such a request may have been made.
In the field of trademarks, the Polish Patent Office conducts the following dispute proceedings:
– declaration of expiry of the right of protection for a trademark;
– declaration of expiry of the protection of an international trademark on the territory of the Republic of Poland;
– invalidation of the recognition of the protection of an international trademark in the territory of the Republic of Poland.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI assists at all stages of trademark litigation and prepares and submits applications on behalf of clients to initiate dispute proceedings
The application initiating trademark dispute shall be made in writing and upon the payment of the relevant fee.
The application must contain the elements specified in the Polish Industrial Property Act and certain documents must be attached to the application to be validly filed.
If the Polish Patent Office finds that it is not competent to consider the application in the course of adversarial proceedings, it shall issue a decision in this matter.
If the applicant withdrew the application before the hearing, the Patent Office shall issue a decision to discontinue the proceedings.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI prepares and submits responses to applications to initiate trademark litigation
The Patent Office shall deliver copies of the application to the parties to the disputed proceedings. At the same time, the Office sets a deadline for preparing and sending a response to this request.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI draws up and submits complaints to the administrative courts against decisions or rulings of the Patent Office
Provisions on intellectual property proceedings apply to trademark litigation proceedings.
As a rule, such cases fall within the jurisdiction of the regional courts.
In cases concerning IT solutions in the field of trademarks, the competent court in the first instance is the Regional Court in Warsaw.
In the case of filing an action in the field of trademarks, the court requests the President of the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland to provide information whether a case for invalidation or revocation of the right is pending before the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland. The President of the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland shall immediately provide such information in writing or in electronic form.
If a case is pending before the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland for annulment or revocation of the protection right, the court shall suspend the proceedings until the final conclusion of the proceedings before the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland.
The court shall reject the counterclaim for revocation or invalidation of the protection right if the decision issued by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland concerning the same subject matter, including the grounds for the counterclaim, has become final.
The court shall stay the proceedings ex officio if there are other civil proceedings pending, including the request to which the counterclaim is being brought.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI assists in drafting and filing claims for the cessation of trademark violations
A claim for the cessation of trademark violation is a lawsuit that may be brought in the event of a breach of the entity’s protection right or trademark.
Where there is a risk that packaging, labels, tags, security features, elements or devices used to verify the authenticity or any other means on which the trademark is affixed could be used in relation to the goods, and such use would constitute an infringement of the protection right, the entitled entity under the right of protection for a trademark, or a person authorized by the law, may demand that the following be discontinued:
1) affixing a mark identical to or similar to a trademark on packaging, labels, tags, security features or elements or devices used to verify authenticity or any other means on which the mark may be placed;
2) offering, placing on the market, importing or exporting or storing for the purpose of offering or placing on the market, packaging, labels, tags, security features, authenticity verification elements or devices or any other means on which this mark is affixed.
Claims may also be filed against the person who only places the goods already marked with the trademark on the market, if they do not come from the right holder or a person who had his permission to use the trademark, as well as against the person whose services were used in case of violation of the protection right for the trademark.
The holder of a trademark widely known in the territory of the Republic of Poland may demand that the use of an identical or similar mark be discontinued in relation to identical or similar goods, when such use may mislead the recipients as to the origin of the goods.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI provides clients with guidelines and recommendations as to the strategy and argumentation, preparation of evidence and defence in trademark litigation as well as assists in preparing and filing pleadings for prohibiting infringements of trademark protection rights
Such pleadings in trademark litigation may include claims for:
– ordering that the defendant ceases infringing the right of protection for a trademark by ceasing to mark the trademark and to put the goods so marked on the market;
– discontinuation of placing the trademark on documents related to the marketing of goods, as well as discontinuation of using the trademark for advertising purposes;
– ordering that the defendant removes the trademark from the goods produced or put on the market;
– ordering that the defendant destroys all advertising material bearing the trademark;
– ordering that the defendant publishes the order in a newspaper/journal at his expense.
The holder of the right of protection for a trademark for which a right of protection with earlier priority has been granted may demand that another person be prohibited from unlawfully using an identical mark in the course of business:
1) with a trademark for which a right of protection with prior priority has been granted to the right-holder in respect of identical goods;
2) similar to a trademark for which a right of protection has been granted with prior priority in favour of the right-holder in relation to identical or similar goods, if there is a risk of confusing the public, which includes in particular the risk of associating the mark with the trademark for which the right has been granted with prior priority in favour of the entitled person;
3) similar to a reputable trademark for which a right of protection with earlier priority has been granted to the right-holder in respect of any goods, if the use of this trademark without a valid reason brings undue advantage or is detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trademark.
Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark also consists in the use of a trademark:
– as a trade or business name or as part of those names, unless it does not affect the ability to distinguish the goods in the course of trade;
– in an advertisement constituting an act of unfair competition.
The claim for unjustly obtained benefits as a result of trademark infringement is also a lawsuit that can be filed in the event of infringement of the entity’s protection or trademark. This claim, however, focuses on the surrender of the unlawfully obtained benefits by the infringer.
Such a lawsuit may be filed if the infringement of the entity’s protection right or trademark was culpable by the infringer.
There are two ways to claim damages as a compensation resulting from trademark infringement:
– under general rules;
– by paying a sum of money in the amount corresponding to the licence fee or other appropriate remuneration, which at the time of claiming it would be due for granting permission by the right-holder to use the trademark.
A counterclaim in cases of trademark infringement is admissible if it includes a claim for invalidation or revocation of the right of protection for a trademark.
This provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to requests for invalidation or declaration of expiry of a right of protection for a collective trademark, a collective right of protection for a trademark, a right of protection for a guarantee trademark, recognition of international trademark protection in the territory of the Republic of Poland.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI prepares and files lawsuits on behalf of the claimants to establish that the actions taken or intended do not constitute a violation of the supplementary protection right or the right of protection
A legal interest exists when the defendant:
1) deemed the activities to which the action relates to be a violation of the supplementary protection right or protection right;
2) failed to confirm, within the time limit duly set by the claimant, that the activities to which the claim relates do not constitute an infringement of the supplementary protection right or protection right.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI prepares and submits applications for securing evidence in trademark litigation
The court may secure the evidence prior to the initiation of the trademark proceedings or in the course of the trademark proceedings until the closing of the hearing in the first instance.
In order for the court to grant such security, the applicant must substantiate the claim and demonstrate a legal interest in securing a specific piece of evidence.
Such an application must include:
– elements of a pleading;
– specification of the means of evidence and the method of securing it;
– substantiation of the circumstances justifying the request;
– a concise presentation of the subject matter of the case when the application is submitted before filing the claim.
The court shall issue a decision on securing evidence at a closed session.
When granting a security measure of evidence prior to the commencement of proceedings, the court shall set a date by which the claim should be brought under pain of collapse of the security. This period may not be shorter than two weeks and longer than one month from the date on which the order freezing the evidence becomes final.
The court adjudicates in such a way of securing the evidence, which it deems appropriate according to the circumstances of a given case.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI assists in drafting and submitting complaints against court decisions on securing evidence in trademark litigation
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI assists in drawing up and submitting applications for revealing or releasing evidence in trademark litigation
Such a request may be submitted by the claimant who has substantiated the claim in order to disclose or release evidence by the defendant at his disposal.
Such an application must meet the requirements set out in the Act and contain:
– requirements for pleadings;
– specification of the evidence that the claimant requests disclosure or release;
– substantiation of the circumstances justifying the request, including the circumstances from which it follows that the defendant has the evidence covered by the request.
The court serves the request to the defendant and gives a period of two weeks to respond.
Taking into account the request, the court specifies the date of disclosure or delivery of the evidence, the rules for using it and getting acquainted with it, and also instructs the parties on the protection of trade secrets. If the defendant invokes the protection of business secrets, the court may lay down specific rules for the use and familiarization with evidence and may introduce additional restrictions.
If the defendant evades the execution of the order ordering the disclosure or release of evidence or allows the destruction of such evidence in order to prevent its disclosure or release, the court may:
1) consider as proven the facts to be established by this means, unless the defendant who evades the execution of the order ordering the disclosure or production of evidence or allowing the destruction of such evidence proves otherwise;
2) charge the defendant with the obligation to reimburse the costs of the proceedings, in whole or in part, regardless of the outcome of the case.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI assists in drawing up and submitting complaints regarding the disclosure or issuance of evidence in trademark litigation
– Act of June 30, 2000 – Industrial Property Law (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 324);
– Act of 16 February 2007 on competition and consumer protection (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 275);
– Act of 16 April 1993 on combating unfair competition (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 1233);
– Act of 23 August 2007 on counteracting unfair market practices (Journal of Laws of 2017, item 2070);
– Act of 17 November 1964 – Code of Civil Procedure;
– Act of 23 April 1964 – Civil Code (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 1360);
– Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs (Official Journal of the European Union L.1998.289.28);
– Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (Official Journal of the EU.L.1998.213.13);
– Directive 87/54/EEC on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products (OJ EUL.1987.24.36);
– Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests (OJ EU.L.2009.110.30);
– Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ EU.L.1993.95.29);
– Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 23 July 2002 on inventions and utility models related to state defence or security (Journal of Laws 2002.123.1056);
– Regulation of the Prime Minister of January 30, 2002 on the filing and examination of industrial design applications (Journal of Laws 2002.40.358);
– Regulation of the Prime Minister of September 17, 2001 on the submission and examination of applications for inventions and utility models (Journal of Laws 2001.102.1119).
