POLAND LAW AND PRACTICE Contributed by: Krystyna Szczepanowska-Kozłowska, Marcin Ziarkowski, Krzysztof Popławski and Kacper Sobolewski, A&O Shearman, A. Pedzich Sp. k .
Procedural Issues Damages are generally considered together with liability, although it is possible for the court to issue a partial award on liability and only then continue the proceedings to determine the exact compensation. Damages for Wrongful Injunction An alleged infringer can claim damages for a wrongful injunction. See 5.1 Preliminary Injunc- tive Relief for more details. 5.5 Legal Costs The rule is that the party who loses the dispute has to pay the legal costs, including court fees, attorney fees and certain other expenses (eg, the remuneration of a court-appointed expert). Costs before filing actions are usually not recov - erable. And so are many expenses incurred dur - ing the proceedings (eg, commissioning a pri - vate expert opinion). Generally, the legal costs awarded by the court are usually but a fraction of a party’s actual expenses. This is especially true with respect to attorney fees. 5.6 Relevance of Claimant/Plaintiff Conduct to Relief The claimant’s conduct may lead to a reduction of the legal costs awarded but will generally not affect the scope of the final relief. 6. Other IP Rights 6.1 Trade Marks Trade mark disputes in the life sciences and pharma sector are uncommon in Poland.
However, in 2022, the Supreme Administrative Court issued two judgments concerning a long- standing dispute between Swiss Pharma Inter - national AG (Polpharma Group) and Hasco TM (Hasco Group) over the “ANACARD PRO” trade mark (Hasco’s trade mark) and its similarity to the “ACARD” trade mark (Swiss Pharma). Both companies produce drugs containing acetyl - salicylic acid, which is used in the prevention of heart diseases. Swiss Pharma filed an invalida - tion application for the “ANACARD PRO” trade mark, claiming that it was similar to the “ACARD” trade mark, which is a reputable trade mark, and therefore Hasco’s trade mark was detrimental to its reputation. Hasco, on the other hand, argued that the “ACARD” trade mark had not been used for five years and filed a motion to invalidate it on that basis. The PPO issued a decision on the invalidation of the “ACARD” trade mark and dismissed the invalidation motion for “ANAC - ARD PRO”, stating that the trade marks were not similar. Both these cases were appealed to the administrative courts. The decision to invali - date the “ACARD” trade mark was set aside, and the decision to dismiss the invalidation applica - tion for the “ANACARD PRO” trade mark was upheld. Both judgments were appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which set them aside and referred them back for re-examination. The authors anticipate that the final judgments of both cases will be issued within the next few years. The applicable laws are mainly the Act on Indus - trial Property Law of 2000, the Act on Pharma - ceutical Law of 2001, the Act on Medical Devic - es of 2022 and the Act on Combating Unfair Competition of 1993. 6.2 Copyright Copyright disputes in the life sciences and pharma sector in Polish jurisdiction are not very
234 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook