News

Today, the Polish Press Agency website published a statement by Dr. Michał Markiewicz on the currently hot topic of royalties on the online streaming exploitation of certain works. First of all, he points out what the mechanism of additional remuneration, about which there is a dispute, is and how this system would work if applied to the automotive industry. Why should only creators of audiovisual works and performers of musical and spoken-word works be entitled to double remuneration for streaming? How does this amendment relate to the DSM Directive, which it supposedly implements? How could the proportional and appropriate remuneration of creators, including audiovisual works, be regulated differently? Thanks for the invitation and the interview to editor Anna Kruszyńska. Link to the full article: https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/co-z-pieniedzmi-dla-tworcow-za-wykorzystywanie-utworow-w-internecie-i-streamingu-glos?fbclid=IwAR1nQLXtwdd1

Jaroslaw Sroczynski has been recommended again in the Competition/Antitrust field within the international ranking organized by Chambers. To quote from the organizers: “Jarosław Sroczyński of Markiewicz & Sroczyński is a notable senior name in competition law matters. He assists with a broad range of issues, including antitrust and regulatory compliance.” Congratulations to all the awardees! Link to ranking: https://chambers.com/lawyer/jaroslaw-sroczynski-europe-7:324688

IIn today’s Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about trademarks. It is worth remembering that in addition to the prerequisites for individual forms of infringement, an encroachment on the protective right must consist of a violation of general prerequisites, including the key ones from the perspective of determining the scope of the right itself, use of the sign in business dealings, use in relation to goods and services, violation of the function of the trademark, and illegality. So what is the use of a sign as a trademark? And how to understand the necessity of infringing the function of a trademark? The evolution of case law on the one hand makes this branch of law more flexible, but on the other hand introduces significant uncertainty about the very scope of the law. Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1511222-Jak-uzywac-znak-towarowy.html?fbclid=IwAR0vxU3o2mOju9Xq1hi32pOKg4uF9PxxwL68YBe5yTEn3x8kJs-xS5IpAec

Case C-255/22: yesterday, the European Court of Justice closed the appeal hearing in re: Gazprom committments (Commission’s decision of 2018, AT.39816). Now the AG Rantos’ opinion in June, and then the verdict. What it will be? As you can see in the photos, the stairways to justice are long, but lead high. Cordial thanks to Silvio Cappellari, Sebastian Gröss and Niklas Jacobi for the opportunity to cooperate in this matter. Special thanks to Ralica Yordanova, supporting all of us on behalf of the client, Bulgarian natural gas company Overgas Inc.

This time in Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz presents the issue of cumulation of IP protection from the perspective of a single product, the protection of which entrepreneurs can expand by obtaining multiple rights whose “direction” of protection differs. Thus, we can, among other things, protect specific details of a design or the overall impression it creates, protect against the risk of association by the average viewer, or the use of a new technical achievement. In the text, Dr. Markiewicz writes why it is worthwhile to seek additional protection of an important project for the entrepreneur. He also points out the systemic dangers of failing to standardize exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights – an example of which is the recent and widely commented ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU in the Audi C-344/22 case. Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1510455-Dlaczego-warto-chronic-wieloma-prawami-ten-sam-projekt.html

In today’s Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about copyright law and the difficulty in defining the concept of a work, and therefore determining what copyright protects. The problem has been discussed for years, but there is a chance on the horizon that the Court of Justice of the EU, answering two preliminary questions addressed to it at the end of 2023, will answer how to examine the premise of “the author’s own intellectual creation.” Among many specific issues, the CJEU will be able to answer the questions: 👉 Should only the result of a person’s work be examined, or also the creative process itself? 👉 When examining the creative choices made by the author, does the author’s subjective judgment as to the choices he made matter? 👉 Can circumstances related to the reception of the work affect the assessment of meeting the criteria for protection? Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1509703-Czym-jest-utwor.html

An interview appeared in Rzeczpospolita this week, in which Dr. Michal Markiewicz addresses the future of copyright law in the context of artificial intelligence (AI). Will we live to see regulation on international grounds, will creators be compensated for the use of their works for the purpose of teaching algorithms, will computers replace humans, should AI creations receive some kind of protection, such as a related law, and how to evaluate the cooperation between man and machine? There are significantly more questions, but we ran out of “space.” ➡️ Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://www.rp.pl/rzecz-o-prawie/art39705891-michal-markiewicz-nikt-nie-zaciagnie-hamulca.html