News

In the latest article on the Prawo.pl portal, Professor Ryszard Markiewicz comments on the proposed legislative changes related to the implementation of Directive 2019/790 into the Polish legal order. As a result of the amendment, has the right of creators to remuneration really been strengthened? Issues raised include: Analysis of the concept of “fair and adequate” remuneration; Terminological objections; The issue of post-contractual remuneration. To quote from the author: “In light of the current wording of the draft, the creator is always entitled to a “fair and adequate” remuneration, unless its gratuitousness is prejudged in the contract. This seems to make sense, given that often the exploitation of a work does not involve generating revenue that covers the producer’s or publisher’s costs. The so-called best-seller clause of Article 44 of the Copyright Act here ensures remuneration to the creator in the face of the existence of significant benefits in them. But the construction and drafting of the proposed legislation is unacceptable.” Full article: https://www.rp.pl/abc-firmy/art40829791-poczatkujacy-wynalazcy-potrzebuja-ochrony-prawnej Link to the contest website: https://www.prawo.pl/prawo/umowne-wynagrodzenie-autorskie-w-projekcie-nowelizacji,528001.html? The “5 minutes about IP” section: https://www.prawo.pl/prawo/5-minut-o-pwi,518742.html

Yesterday’s Rzeczpospolita featured an interview with me regarding young inventors and the dangers lurking for them from intellectual property rights. What they should know and what prospects should be created for them so that we all benefit in the future. The interview was inspired by Rzeczpospolita’s new contest, entitled: “Young Inventor. We are looking for a Polish Sam Altman.” Let’s look for many of them!!! Link to the interview: https://www.rp.pl/abc-firmy/art40829791-poczatkujacy-wynalazcy-potrzebuja-ochrony-prawnej Link to the contest website: https://mlodywynalazca.rp.pl/

In today’s Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about selected dangers of inaction by intellectual property rights holders. This is because it is worth remembering that procrastination in taking appropriate action can have very harsh consequences, including dismissal of a lawsuit and limiting the ability to raise claims also against future infringements. In the text, he draws attention, among other things, to: the time limit for applying for injunctive relief, the consequences of tolerating the use of a trademark that interferes with another, previously registered one, the plea of “venire contra factum proprium” and the differences between the above plea and the institution of the statute of limitations. Link to article: https://www.rp.pl/biznes/art40810871-jakie-sa-konsekwencje-bezczynnosci-w-prawie-wlasnosci-intelektualnej

In today’s Rzeczpospolita, Dr Michał Markiewicz writes about related rights and the differences in their regulation relative to copyright, in particular focusing on the right to artistic performance, the right to the phonogram and the right to the videogram. Among other questions, in the text he answers: what is the difference between the exercise of copyright and the indicated related rights? What are the differences between copyright and related rights? To what extent does the use of related rights not infringe them but involves the obligation to pay remuneration (and what differences exist in this regard between the rights of performers and the rights to the phonogram and videogram)? Link to article for Rzeczpospolita subscribers: https://www.rp.pl/biznes/art40742641-prawa-pokrewne-a-prawo-autorskie-roznice-i-konstrukcje

The Prawo.pl portal’s “5 minutes about IP” featured an article by attorney Ewelina Bosek titled: Using a trademark – to mark a business, or only goods and services? “When expanding our business and deciding to protect a mark, we usually apply for it out of caution for a wider range of goods and services. This has both advantages and disadvantages. There is then a greater risk that the mark will be challenged in oppositions or cancellation applications, but at the same time we benefit – at least for a while – from broader protection.” Issues addressed: Consequences of a broad list of goods and services; Distribution of third-party brand goods vs. trademark; Practice of authorities and courts; Practical conclusions – a broader perspective. Link to article: https://www.prawo.pl/biznes/jak-nie-stracic-prawa-do-znaku-towarowego,527312.html?

In the XXII edition of the nationwide Ranking of Law Firms 2024 organized by Rzeczpospolita, the Markiewicz Sroczynski Mioduszewski law firm was once again recognized in its practice areas. In total, we received 7 distinctions: Title of Law Firm – Leader in two areas: Intellectual Property Law; Competition and Antitrust Law; And the title of Recommended Law Firm in the field of: TMT (Information Technology, Media, Telecommunications). In addition, in the category of lawyers, the Field Leaders were Prof. Ryszard Markiewicz – “Intellectual Property Law”; attorney Jaroslaw Sroczynski – “Competition and Antitrust Law”; while the Recommended Lawyers are: mec. Marcin Mioduszewski – “TMT (information technology, media, telecommunications)” Dr. Michal Markiewicz – “Intellectual Property Law”. More about the ranking on the Rzeczpospolita website: https://rankingi.rp.pl/rankingkancelarii/2024

Today’s Rzeczpospolita featured an article by editor Nadia Senkowska with a short commentary by Dr. Michal Markiewicz on the practices of UEFA and FIFA in securing intellectual property rights in connection with the organization of football tournaments (European and World Cups). What was not included in the text was the observation that: UEFA and FIFA activities cannot monopolize all commercial activities around the tournament, which is, after all, a social event. Therefore, the production of shirts, balls or other gadgets for fans in connection with the tournament taking place is not prohibited, as long as their designs are not the same or confusingly similar to the originals, and the way they are promoted does not encroach on the legally protected interests of the tournament organizer. However, the determination of the limits of the protection granted requires an individual assessment of the specific circumstances of the case. Link to article available to subscribers: https://www.rp.pl/podatki/art40660101-euro-2024-i-benefity-firma-ma-koszt-pracownik-przychod?