Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Security Rights in Intellectual Property in Poland

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Security Rights in Intellectual Property

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 45))

  • 447 Accesses

Abstract

In Polish law, there are two important types of security for claims that may be established over rights to intangible assets, namely the ordinary pledge and the registered pledge. The ordinary pledge is regulated in the Polish Civil Code (Art. 306–335); in the case of intangible assets, it is hardly ever used in practice. The registered pledge is regulated in Art. 7 Section 1 of the Act of December 6, 1996 on Registered Pledge and the Register of Pledges (ARPRP); it is more frequently applied in the case of intangible assets. Both rights are, as a general rule, accessory rights. However, the Act on Registered Pledge and the Register of Pledges provides some exceptions to the accessoriness principle. For instance, according to Art. 18 Section 2 of ARPRP, under special conditions, a registered pledge is not extinguished even if the claim it secures expires.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See more in: Pyziak-Szafnicka (2007), pp. 727–729.

  2. 2.

    Careful characteristics of rights in intangible assets in Poland is offered by Skubisz (2012), pp. 44 et seq.

  3. 3.

    Act of 4.02.1994 on Copyright and Related Rights, Journal of Law (J. of. L.) 2006 No. 90, item 631.

  4. 4.

    Expressly so in: Preussner-Zamorska and Traple (1992), p. 49.

  5. 5.

    Expressly so in: Karasek (1998), p. 468, and also in: Żelechowski (2011), pp. 178 et seq.

  6. 6.

    Act of June 30, 2000, Industrial Property Law, J. of. L. 2001 No. 49, item 508.

  7. 7.

    As per judicial decicions, a patent is “an absolute subjective civil right which gives the person on whom it is conferred the authority of the exclusive use of an invention both for profit or for occupational/professional purposes and as an object of legal transactions,” (judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court WSA in Warsaw of 23.05.2006, VI SA/Wa 43/06). Pursuat to Art. 24 of IPL, “Patents are granted for inventions that are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application.” The following prerequisites for the patentability of an invention are formulated in the literature on the subject: (1) its technical character, (2) newness, (3) inventive step (non-obviousness), (4) applicability of the solution invented; The author of an invention is the original person that is entitled to obtain a patent. The territorial scope of the patent right is confined to the area of Poland. The patent is granted for 20 years of the date of filing a patent application with the Patent Office. The material scope of a patent is shaped by patent claims included in the so-called patent description. Due to the limited admissibility of enforcement against a patent right to an invention in relation to which an application has not been filed with the Patent Office, certain reservations are voiced in the literature as to whether such a right may be pledged. Cf. more about it in: Żelechowski (2011), pp. 228 et seq., and also in: Szewc (2011), pp. 73 et seq., and also in: Sieńczyło-Chlabicz (2015), pp. 421 et seq.

  8. 8.

    Art. 94 Section 1 of IPL defines a utility model as “a new and useful technical solution concerning the shape, construction or specification of an object with a permanent form”. New and creative combination of an already existing and known construction and technical elements into a completely new and useful solution is the essence of a utility model. Cf. more about it in: Szewc (2011), pp. 98 et seq.

  9. 9.

    A trademark may be any marking which can be represented graphically if it can be used to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of another.

  10. 10.

    Pursuant to Art. 102 of IPL “an industrial design is a new appearance of a product or part thereof, such an appearance being of individual character and resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, shapes, colours, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation.” An industrial design should be characterised as follows: (1) it must refer to a form of a product or part thereof; (2) it must be new; (3) it must have individual character (i.e. be original); (d) it must be fit for repeatable reproduction in production of objects. Pursuant to Art. 102 Section 2 of IPL, those forms of a product which are conditioned solely by “technical or functional aspects” may not be registered as utility designs. Moreover, such utility models the use of which would be against public order or good moral conduct, or such utility models which include markings/indications to which protection cannot be granted are also not patentable (Art. 106 PrPW).

  11. 11.

    In Polish law, integrated circuit topography is understood as “the internal (three-dimensional) structure of such a circuit, conceptualised and fixated, or recorded, as a model which enables copying (reproducing) such a circuit,” see: Szewc (2011), p. 111. Only original topographies are registrable.

  12. 12.

    The principles of their protection are specified in the Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of December 12, 2001 on Community designs (Official Journal L 003, 05/01/2002).

  13. 13.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of December 20, 1993 on the Community Trademark (Official Journal L 011, 14/01/1994).

  14. 14.

    As a result of the ratification of the European Patent Convention, the Act of March 14 the Filing of Europan Patent Applications and Effects of the European Patent in the Republic of Poland was introduced.

  15. 15.

    IPL Act—specifies the duration of individual rights. The periods stated in the Act my not be extended, except for the protection of a trademark, which lasts for 10 years of the application date, but may be prolonged without any limitations.

  16. 16.

    Jasińska (2014), p. 974.

  17. 17.

    To learn more about the manner in which Polish law protects know-how and how confidential information may be deemed as the object of absolute subjective rights, see: Sołtysiński and Gogulski (2013), pp. 451 et seq., and also: Promińska (2010), pp. 777 et seq.; Giesen (2014), pp. 278 et seq.

  18. 18.

    The rights to a business secret are discussed by: Sołtysiński and Gogulski (2013), pp. 453 et seq.; Wojcieszko-Głuszko (2002), pp. 146 et seq; Giesen (2014), p. 228.

  19. 19.

    For more, see: Widło (2008), pp. 399–400.

  20. 20.

    For more about the registered pledge on rights in Polish law, see: Żelechowski (2011), pp. 136–177.

  21. 21.

    See e.g.: Niemirka (1995), p.15.

  22. 22.

    Act of 23.04.1964, J. of. L. 1964 No. 16, item 93, as amended.

  23. 23.

    Gołaczyński (2002), pp. 149–150.

  24. 24.

    Expressly so in: Żelechowski (2011), pp. 142–143.

  25. 25.

    So stated in: Szczepanowska-Kozłowska (2014), pp. 123–124.

  26. 26.

    Expressly so in: Gniewek (2007), p. 726. So stated in: Szczepanowska-Kozłowska (2014), p. 124.

  27. 27.

    Fore more on this subject, see in particular: Gołaczyński (2012), p. 488.

  28. 28.

    Widło (2018), pp. 399–400.

  29. 29.

    Żelechowski (2011), p. 239.

  30. 30.

    Targosz (2015), p. 626.

  31. 31.

    Gołaczyński (2012), p. 488.

  32. 32.

    So stated in: Żelechowski (2011), pp. 151–154.

  33. 33.

    Contradicted by Żelechowski (2011), p. 406.

  34. 34.

    Zoll (1937), pp. 8–9.

  35. 35.

    Szewc and Jyż (2011), p. 257.

  36. 36.

    Expressly so in: Żelechowski (2011), p. 410.

  37. 37.

    This solution is advocated by Kopff (1973), p. 204, but contradicted by Żelechowski (2011), pp. 410–411.

  38. 38.

    Szewc and Jyż (2011), p. 257.

  39. 39.

    Sołtysiński (2012), p. 521; Szewc and Jyż (2011), p. 256.

  40. 40.

    Żelechowski (2011), pp. 414–415.

  41. 41.

    Preussner-Zamorska and Traple (1992), p. 56.

  42. 42.

    So stated in: Żelechowski (2011), pp. 416–417.

  43. 43.

    Pursuant to Art. 96 Section 1 of the Act of August 29, 1997—Banking Law, banks may issue bank enforcement titles only on the basis of bank books or other documents related to banking activities.

  44. 44.

    For more on this subject, see: Pietrzkowski (2009), pp. 404–405.

  45. 45.

    At present it is equal to 5% of the disputed or appealed amount, but not less than PLN 30 and not more than PLN 100,000.

  46. 46.

    Act of July 28, 2005 on court costs in civil cases, J. of L. 2005 No. 167, item 1398.

  47. 47.

    They are determined by Art. 49 of the Act of August 29, 1997 on court enforcement officers and enforcement, J. of L. 1997 No. 133, item 882.

  48. 48.

    Cf. Promińska (2017), pp. 634–635.

  49. 49.

    Expresly so in: Żelechowski (2011), p. 186.

  50. 50.

    Expresly so in: Skubisz (1997), p. 133.

References

  • Giesen B (2014) In: Kępiński M (ed) System Prawa Prywatnego, Prawo konkurencji, vol 15. C.H. Beck, Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN, Warszawa, pp 278–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Gniewek E (ed) (2007) System Prawa Prywatnego, vol 3, Prawo rzeczowe. C.H. Beck, Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN, Warszawa, pp 726–728

    Google Scholar 

  • Gołaczyński J (2002) Zastaw na rzeczach ruchomych. C.H. Beck, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Gołaczyński J (2012) In: Gniewek E (ed) System Prawa Prywatnego, vol 4, Prawo rzeczowe. C.H. Beck, Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN, Warszawa, pp 459–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasińska K (2014) In: Kostański P (ed) Prawo własności przemysłowej. Komentarz. C.H. Beck, Warszawa, pp 300–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Karasek I (1998) Przedmiot zastawu rejestrowego. Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego 3:458

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopff A (1973) Przejście autorskich praw majątkowych. In: Grzybowski S, Kopff A, Serda J (eds) Zagadnienia prawa autorskiego. PWN, Warszawa, pp 287–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemirka B (1995) Prawne formy zabezpieczania kredytów – przewłaszczenie na zabezpieczenie. MoP 10:10–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietrzkowski H (2009) In: Ereciński T (ed) Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, part 3, Postępowanie egzekucyjne, vol 4. Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Preussner-Zamorska J, Traple E (1992) Zastaw na prawach w prawie polskim i niemieckim ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem problematyki praw na dobrach niematerialnych (zagadnienia wybrane). KSP XXV:41–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Promińska U (2010) In: Katner WJ (ed) System Prawa Prywatnego, vol 9, Prawo zobowiązań – umowy nienazwane. C.H. Beck, Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN, Warszawa, pp 635–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Promińska U (2017) Dobra własności przemysłowej jako przedmiot wkładu do spółek handlowych. In: Kostański P, Podrecki P, Targosz T (eds) Experientia Docet. Księga jubileuszowa ofiarowana Pani Profesor Elżbiecie Traple. Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa, pp 629–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyziak-Szafnicka M (2007) In: Safjan M (ed), System Prawa Prywatnego, vol 1, Prawo Cywilne – część ogólna. C.H. Beck, Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN, Warszawa, pp 727–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieńczyło-Chlabicz J (2015) Prawo własności intelektualnej. Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Skubisz R (1997) Prawo znaków towarowych. Komentarz. Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Skubisz R (2012) In: Skubisz R (ed) System Prawa Prywatnego, vol 14A, Prawo własności przemysłowej. C.H. Beck, Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN, Warszawa, pp 40–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Sołtysiński S (2012) System Prawa Prywatnego, vol 14A, Prawo własności przemysłowej. C.H. Beck, Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Sołtysiński S, Gogulski S (2013) Ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji. Komentarz. C.H. Beck, Warszawa, pp 451–495

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczepanowska-Kozłowska K (2014) In: Nowińska E, Promińska U, Szczepanowska-Kozłowska K (eds) Własność przemysłowa i jej ochrona. LexisNexis, Warszawa, pp 124–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Szewc A (2011). In: Szewc A, Jyż G (eds) Prawo własności przemysłowej. C.H. Beck, Warszawa, pp 36–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Szewc A, Jyż G (2011) Prawo własności przemysłowej. C.H. Beck, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Targosz T (2015) In: Flisak D (ed) Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne. Komentarz. Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa, pp 626 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Widło J (2008) Zastaw rejestrowy na prawach. LexisNexis, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Widło J (2018) In: Fras M, Habdas M (eds) Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, vol 2. Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa, pp 50–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Wojcieszko-Głuszko E (2002) Ochrona prawna know-how w prawie polskim na tle porównawczym. ZNUJ PWiOWI 81, Kraków

    Google Scholar 

  • Żelechowski Ł (2011) Zastaw zwykły i rejestrowy na prawach własności przemysłowej. Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoll F (1937) Prawa zastawnicze, według źródeł prawa obowiązującego w Małopolsce i na Ziemi Cieszyńskiej. Księgarnia Powszechna, Kraków

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz, Department of Civil Law, Lodz, Poland

    Beata Giesen

Authors
  1. Beata Giesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beata Giesen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Eva-Maria Kieninger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Giesen, B. (2020). Security Rights in Intellectual Property in Poland. In: Kieninger, EM. (eds) Security Rights in Intellectual Property. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44191-3_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44191-3_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44190-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44191-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation