[i][b]Amendment of Article 305 subsection 1 of the Industrial Property Law and the Results thereof in Practice [/b][/i]

Apply

[i][b]Amendment of Article 305 subsection 1 of the Industrial Property Law and the Results thereof in Practice [/b][/i]

Journal Title: Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem - Year 2009, Vol 1, Issue 1

Abstract

Since the Industrial Property Law came into force (act from the 30th of June 2000, O.J., No 119, item 1117 including later amendments), both practical experts and theoreticians found the formulation of article 305 subsection 1 of this act controversial, as it says that “anyone marking goods with a counterfeit trademark for the purpose of placing them on the market or placing goods bearing such trademark on the market” is punishable. With the resolution of the 24th of May of 2005 (I KZP 13/05, OSNKW 2005, No. 6, item 50) the Supreme Court gave an answer to the legal question regarding the issue whether the term “placing on the market” in the context of article 305 subsection 1 of the Industrial Property Law means placing goods with a counterfeit trademark on the market by manufacturers (primary sales) or also includes the behaviour of people that offer such goods for secondary sales after previously purchasing them. The Supreme Court has decided that the term “placing on the market” found in article 305 subsection 1 of the Industrial Property Law means placing the goods with a counterfeit trademark by the producer or the importer on the market for the first time (primary sales).This resolution has not only not dispersed all controversy around the discussed issue, but it has also inclined a significant number of representatives of the doctrine to take a stand in this issue resolved by the Supreme Court, which has evoked a lot of criticism from a large part of glossarist and commentators of the resolution.This commentary aims at further clarifying the main aspects of this controversy. It is probable that these controversial reactions were one of the main reasons for amending article 305 of the Industrial Property Law, which was done by means of the Act of the 29th of June of 2007 concerning the amendment of the Industrial Property Law.

Authors and Affiliations

Monika Całkiewicz

Keywords

własność przemysłowa

Challenging the validity of the employment contract by the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) in the context of correct determination of the social insurance obligation

The paper analyses challenging the validity of an employment contract by the Social Insurance Institution, in the course of a control of correctness of the determination of the social insurance obligation that results fr...

EP ID EP62265
DOI -
Views 77
Downloads 0