News

Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in the XV Congress of Competition Law, to listen to interesting lectures and voices in discussions. Quoting from Attorney Jaroslaw Sroczynski, “The OCCP procedures, which I had the opportunity to speak about, were a significant part of the subject matter of the Congress. I hope that the next amendment to the law will ensure a proper balance between the powers of the OCCP and entrepreneurs. To the benefit of both parties and in accordance with the principles contained in the ECN+ Directive. As always, Business Pulse was an excellent organizer and facilitator of this event.” Many thanks to Editor Renata Grzeszczak and the PB Team. More about the Congress: https://newsletter.pb.pl/konferencje/xv-kongres-prawo-konkurencji-fb793240-26eb-4a21-b850-c7f1f04f9c93?fbclid=IwAR38TqQB1UfVJ8g8Qt-vWs14OHo-XJOhz4DMmMKr-i4qyJhzUApVLivVQtc

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://uprp.gov.pl/sites/default/files/inline-files/Wyniki%20konkursu%20na%20informację%20medialną%202023.pdf

In today’s Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about trademarks. Similar to other industrial property rights protecting, for example, inventions or industrial designs, is there a right of protection for a trademark? When can a competitor’s unfair registration of a mark identical to ours be blocked, and what is the relationship with agents who want to “seize the right” to a mark, does this regulation also apply to entities other than agents, such as distributors or licensees? So, relatively briefly, for a complex topic, I write about how to defend against a third party’s registration of our unregistered trademark in the territory. Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1505830-Znak-towarowy-rejestruje-konkurent-lub-nielojalny-dystrybutor—jak-sie-bronic-.html?fbclid=IwAR20fcnMXiMplEW10g8L5dK7aV-H9706eZ6fEDzVDWTZ4g-EhygCRU0DP2k

In today’s Rzeczpospolita, I addressed the topic of protecting the appearance of a product, pointing out firstly the principle of permissibility of imitation, but secondly trying to determine to what extent it is limited in many areas of intellectual property law. Thus, I write about what slavish imitation is in the Unfair Competition Law and to what extent the external appearance of a product (design) can be protected by copyright, industrial designs and trademarks. 👉 The topic of cumulative protection by intellectual property rights is fascinating, it shows how many conflicts between the interests of different market players have not yet been precisely resolved – but it is worth being aware of the existing dangers or opportunities. Link to article for Subscribers:https://www.rp.pl/biznes/art39361911-wyglad-produktu-czy-dozwolone-jest-kopiowanie-jak-chroniony-jest-design?fbclid=IwAR0L_UwQzWmIhVTL5cveteaPm7bgU9lUZlC4k9698yb6w0Cv2QMXa9tjGBE

In today’s Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about the durability of a license agreement in copyright law. This is because not everyone realizes that if you do not specify the duration of the license, it will expire after 5 years. An even bigger surprise is related to contracts for a fixed term longer than 5 years. The possibility to terminate them already after 5 years was in principle supposed to protect the creator, but in reality it leads to the opposite effect and the forcing of agreements transferring rights, even though it does not correspond to the interests of the creator, but also to the expectations of the other party to the contract. 👉 So how to deal with license agreements that must be concluded for a long time? ➡️ Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1504331-Wypowiadalnosc-umowy-licencyjnej:-ochrona-tworcy-czy-wrecz-przeciwnie.html?fbclid=IwAR2EmJlMCdeZdrjFRivRa7QxEVG6fdOiH0XCU-MHV01IoGQJZnY3vL9N1dg

In today’s Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about the institution of exhaustion of rights. When we acquire a good protected by intellectual property rights, can we sell it further? It would seem that since it is our property then, of course, yes. However, the answer, as usual in law, is “it depends.” As a rule, intellectual property rights also include control over the further resale of acquired items. The exception in this regard, which is extremely important, is precisely the exhaustion of the right to control the resale – however, this does not always occur, and the mechanism itself is an important tool from the perspective of shaping price policy and the competitiveness of individual markets. In the article I present the basic assumptions of the construction of the exhaustion of the right and the consequences it brings. Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1503521-Wlasnosc-rzeczy-to-jednak-nie-wszystko.html

We are pleased to announce that yesterday there was a favorable verdict for our client in a payment case involving a factoring agreement against a bank as a factor. The case involved fully insured factoring, which, in addition to financing receivables, involves the factor assuming the risk of non-payment for the transaction in cooperation with the factor’s insurer. The client submitted a French counterparty for factoring, claiming to be responsible for supplying goods to a French grocery chain. The client had not worked with this counterparty before and wanted to use the professional services of a factor who claimed to specialize in verifying counterparties and ensuring the security of transactions. The transactions were approved by the factor, and the goods were shipped to France. It was only after the fact that the client discovered that he had been the victim of a distribution scam and had shipped the goods to an entity that merely impersonated a supplier to a French chain store and never received payment for the goods. The client believed that the factor was liable for the loss of the client’s failure to receive payment for the goods because the client relied on the factor to verify the security of the transaction – if the factor had not approved the transaction, the client would not have chosen to ship the goods to France. The factor evaded liability in its entirety, pointing out that assumption of risk does not apply in cases of fraud, and maintained that the factoring agreement did not obligate the factor to conduct a detailed verification of the counterparty, and that the factoring agreement does not relieve the client of the obligation to verify counterparties on its own. In the course of the proceedings, we demonstrated what the purpose and essence of the insured’s full factoring was, and that it was the factor’s primary burden to verify the credibility of the counterparty before including the receivables in the factoring, and pointed out the steps that the factor should have taken for this purpose, which it failed to do. The court agreed with our arguments and took the position that a proper interpretation of the contract, taking into account the purpose and essence of the insured’s full factoring and the circumstances of its conclusion, justified the acceptance of the factor’s liability for the resulting loss at 50%. The court ruled that the customer (as a businessman) and the factor are half responsible for the damage to the customer in the form of non-payment for the goods. The case was handled by attorney Monika Mierzejewska of our law firm. The case was conducted by the District Court in Warsaw, XXVI Commercial Department under case number XXVI GC 971/22. The judgment is not final.