Polish law recognises three main categories of trademark protection, each arising from a different registration pathway.
A trademark registered with the Urzad Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Polish Patent Office – UPRP) grants its owner an exclusive right to use the mark on the territory of Poland for the goods and services listed in the registration. National registrations are valid for 10 years from the filing date and can be renewed indefinitely for successive 10-year periods.
An EU trademark registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Alicante covers all EU member states by a single registration – including Poland. This means that a brand owner who has registered their trademark as an EUTM does not need a separate Polish national filing to be protected on Polish territory. EU trademarks are increasingly the preferred instrument for businesses active across multiple EU markets.
Poland is a member of the Madrid System administered by WIPO. A holder of an international registration (IR) who has designated Poland as a territory of protection enjoys rights equivalent to a Polish national registration, provided UPRP has not refused protection within the prescribed period. International registrations are a practical tool for businesses outside the EU seeking trademark protection in Poland specifically.
Polish law, in line with EU trademark law, affords additional protection to marks that qualify as well-known (in the sense of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention) or as marks with reputation. A well-known mark may be protected even without registration, against use for identical or similar goods that could mislead consumers. A mark with reputation enjoys extended protection against use for dissimilar goods or services, where such use would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the mark – even without a likelihood of confusion.
Poland does not operate a common-law trademark system in the same way as the United Kingdom or the United States. Unregistered marks receive only limited and narrowly construed protection under the rules on unfair competition (Act on Combating Unfair Competition of April 16, 1993). Registration remains by far the most reliable basis for enforcement in Poland.
The primary statute governing trademark rights in Poland is the Act of June 30, 2000 – Industrial Property Law (Ustawa Prawo wlasnosci przemyslowej), as amended. The relevant provisions closely follow Directive (EU) 2015/2436 and Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, meaning that Polish courts interpret infringement concepts in harmony with EU-wide case law.
Infringement occurs when a third party uses, in the course of trade and without the trademark owner’s consent, a sign that is identical or similar to a registered trademark, for goods or services that are identical or similar to those covered by the registration, where such use creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trademark.
Polish courts apply the well-established global assessment test: they consider the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the signs alongside the similarity of the goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and the level of attention of the average consumer. No single factor is decisive – the analysis is always holistic.
Where a third party uses a sign that is identical to the registered mark for identical goods or services, Polish law presumes that confusion will arise. The trademark owner does not need to demonstrate actual confusion – the double identity alone is sufficient to establish infringement.
For trademarks with reputation (znaki renomowane), the scope of protection extends beyond the likelihood of confusion. Use of a similar sign even for dissimilar goods or services may constitute infringement if it takes unfair advantage of the repute of the earlier mark (so-called “free riding”) or is detrimental to its distinctive character (dilution) or repute (tarnishment). This is particularly relevant for internationally recognised brands operating in Poland.
Polish law explicitly covers the following forms of use as potential infringement: affixing the sign to goods or their packaging; offering, placing on the market, or stocking goods under the sign; importing or exporting goods under the sign; using the sign in business documents and advertising; and using the sign as a domain name or in online advertising, including keyword advertising. Courts have also confirmed that using a third-party trademark as a Google Ads keyword can constitute infringement where the ad does not enable the average user to determine the origin of the goods.
Polish law recognises a number of limitations on trademark rights that are worth noting:
Even where trademark law does not provide a clean infringement claim – for instance, because the mark is not registered, or because the registration has lapsed – the Act on Combating Unfair Competition may offer a parallel basis for action. Passing off, slavish imitation of a product’s appearance, and misleading use of another’s trade name or designation of origin can all give rise to claims under this statute. In practice, many Polish infringement cases are pleaded on both trademark law and unfair competition law simultaneously.
Trademark infringement in Poland can result in both civil and criminal consequences, and both routes are actively used in practice.
The trademark owner may seek the following civil remedies before the Polish courts:
Cessation of infringing acts – a court order requiring the infringer to stop using the sign immediately. This is typically the primary and most urgent relief sought.
Removal of the consequences of infringement – for example, removing infringing markings from goods or destroying infringing items.
Damages – the trademark owner may claim actual damages suffered (lost profits, loss of licensing income) or, alternatively, a lump sum equivalent to the fee that would have been charged for a license to use the trademark under a voluntary agreement. Where the infringement was wilful, the court may award damages up to twice the hypothetical license fee. Proof of actual damage is not required if the lump-sum route is chosen, which makes enforcement considerably more accessible for trademark owners.
Surrender of unjust enrichment – the infringer may be required to pay over any profits obtained through infringement.
Publication of the court ruling – the court may order the infringer to publish the judgment in the press at their own expense, which has a significant reputational dimension.
Provisional measures (injunctions) – Polish courts can grant ex parte provisional injunctions on an urgent basis, allowing the trademark owner to freeze the situation quickly – for instance, by prohibiting further sale of infringing goods – while the main proceedings are ongoing. This is a powerful tool where time is of the essence.
Poland applies EU Regulation 608/2013 on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. Trademark owners who have recorded their rights with Polish or EU customs authorities can request interception of suspect consignments at the border. Customs authorities have the power to detain goods, notify the rights holder, and – where the importer does not contest – facilitate destruction of the infringing goods without the need for court proceedings. This route is particularly useful for combating counterfeit imports.
The Polish Industrial Property Law provides for criminal sanctions where a trademark is infringed deliberately. A person who, in the course of trade, marks goods with a sign that infringes a registered trademark, or who places such goods on the market, may face:
Where the infringement is committed for financial gain or in an organised manner, the penalty may be increased to up to 5 years’ imprisonment. Criminal proceedings in trademark cases are initiated on the motion of the injured party (the trademark owner) and are handled by the public prosecutor’s office. Criminal enforcement is most commonly used in cases involving large-scale counterfeiting.
Civil trademark proceedings in Poland are heard by the Regional Courts (Sady Okregowe), with specific competence allocated to designated IP divisions. The court fee for filing an infringement claim is calculated as a percentage of the amount claimed. Legal proceedings can be costly and time-consuming, which is why most cases settle after the cease and desist stage. The limitation period for civil trademark infringement claims is generally three years from the date on which the trademark owner learned of the infringement and identified the infringer, with an absolute cap of five years from the date of infringement.
Discovering that someone is using your trademark without authorisation in Poland can be alarming. Acting methodically and promptly – but without unnecessary escalation – is the right approach. Here is a step-by-step guide.
Before taking any action, gather and preserve evidence of the infringing use. This means: screenshots of websites (with the URL and date clearly visible), photographs of infringing goods or packaging, copies of advertisements, records of domain name registrations, purchase receipts for infringing products (test purchases), and any other material that demonstrates the use in question. Bear in mind that evidence may disappear quickly – a website can be taken down overnight. Wherever possible, use a notarised or certified method of securing online evidence, as this will carry greater weight in court.
Polish IP litigation has its own procedural rules and practical customs. Before taking any action, consult a rzecznik patentowy (Polish patent/trademark attorney) or an advocate specialising in IP law. Your attorney will assess:
In the overwhelming majority of cases, the first formal step is a cease and desist letter sent to the infringer. This letter typically sets out the trademark rights relied upon, describes the infringing use, demands cessation within a specified deadline, and requests a written undertaking not to repeat the infringement. The letter should be professionally drafted and sent in a way that creates a verifiable record of delivery – registered mail or email with read confirmation. A well-drafted cease and desist letter resolves a significant proportion of Polish trademark disputes without the need for litigation.
If the infringement is causing ongoing commercial harm – for instance, the infringer is selling goods on a major marketplace under your trademark – and the cease and desist letter produces no immediate response, your attorney can apply to the court for a provisional injunction. Polish courts can grant such measures within days in urgent cases, ordering the infringer to cease the use immediately pending the outcome of full proceedings.
If the infringement involves importation of counterfeit or infringing goods from outside the EU, consider lodging an application for customs action (wniosek o podjecie dzialania przez organy celne) with the Polish Customs Service or, for a broader EU-wide application, with EUIPO’s Enforcement team under Regulation 608/2013. This can be done proactively – you do not need to wait for a specific shipment to be identified.
If informal steps fail, the next option is to file a civil infringement claim before the competent Regional Court. Your attorney will guide you on which court has jurisdiction, the court fees involved, the claims to be asserted, and the realistic timeline. Polish courts have become more experienced in IP matters in recent years, and injunctions are granted more readily than was the case a decade ago. Proceedings typically take one to three years for a first-instance judgment, though settlement is common at any stage.
Where the infringement occurs through a domain name, a complaint may be filed under the NASK dispute resolution procedure (for .pl domains) or the UDRP/URS (for generic TLDs). Online marketplaces such as Allegro, Amazon, and others have brand protection programmes that allow trademark owners to report and remove infringing listings – often faster than any court process.
Receiving a cease and desist letter alleging trademark infringement can feel threatening. However, it is important to respond calmly and strategically. Not all cease and desist letters are well-founded, and the right response depends heavily on the specific circumstances of your case.
This is the most important rule. Ignoring a cease and desist letter does not make the problem go away – it signals to the sender that you are unresponsive, which typically leads to escalation (court proceedings, customs holds, etc.). Note any deadline stated in the letter. Even if you intend to contest the claim, you should acknowledge receipt and indicate that the matter is being reviewed.
Do not attempt to respond without professional advice. A Polish trademark attorney will analyse the letter and provide a frank assessment of:
This is a basic but essential check. Search the UPRP register (through the UPRP’s online database), the EUIPO register (TMview), and the WIPO Madrid Monitor to confirm that the trademark cited in the letter is actually registered, is in force, and covers the specific goods or services relevant to your use. It is not uncommon to receive cease and desist letters based on expired registrations, registrations that do not cover the relevant goods, or marks that are too descriptive to be validly enforced.
Under Polish and EU trademark law, a registered trademark that has not been put to genuine use in Poland (or the EU, for EUTMs) for a continuous period of five years from registration may be cancelled for non-use. If the sender has not actually used the trademark in Poland for five or more years, you may have strong grounds to file a cancellation action before UPRP or EUIPO – or to raise non-use as a defence in infringement proceedings. This is a significant leverage point and is worth exploring early.
Depending on the outcome of the above analysis, there are several strategic paths open to you:
Option A – Cease the use voluntarily. If your attorney’s analysis confirms that the claim is well-founded and the risk of litigation is high, the most cost-effective option may be to cease the infringing use, remove the sign from your goods, website, and materials, and provide the undertaking requested. Negotiating a reasonable deadline for doing so – and ensuring the undertaking is worded narrowly enough not to create wider restrictions – is a matter for your attorney.
Option B – Negotiate a licence or coexistence agreement. In some cases, the trademark owner may be willing to grant a licence (possibly at a commercial fee) or to enter into a coexistence agreement that allows both parties to use their respective marks within defined limits. This is a common and commercially sensible resolution, particularly where there is no real consumer confusion in practice.
Option C – Challenge the claim. If the claim appears unfounded – because the marks are insufficiently similar, the goods or services are too different, a defence applies, or the mark is vulnerable to non-use cancellation – your attorney can draft a substantive response setting out your position. A clear and well-argued response often leads the claimant to reassess, particularly if you raise a cancellation threat.
Option D – File a cancellation action. If there is a solid non-use or invalidity argument, filing a cancellation or invalidity action at UPRP or EUIPO can significantly shift the balance of power. It also demonstrates to the other side that you are prepared to defend your position actively, which frequently leads to a negotiated resolution.
Whatever strategy you adopt, respond in writing before the deadline stated in the letter – or, if you need more time, write to request an extension. Your response should be professional in tone, factually accurate, and free of admissions of liability. If you are contesting the claim, set out your position clearly but without unnecessary aggression. In Poland, as elsewhere, the way parties conduct themselves in the pre-litigation phase is noticed – and sometimes noted by courts.
Regardless of the outcome of this particular dispute, receiving a cease and desist letter is a prompt to review your brand strategy. Consider whether your own key marks are registered in Poland and in the EU – because having your own registration is the strongest protection both offensively and defensively. A registered trademark gives you the right to claim prior rights, to oppose later filings, and to counter-claim in infringement proceedings.
Foreign businesses active in Poland – whether through e-commerce, local distributors, or direct presence – face the same legal landscape as Polish entities. A few additional points are worth noting:
Polish courts accept proceedings conducted in Polish. Foreign parties must use a qualified attorney admitted to practice in Poland (a rzecznik patentowy can represent a party in administrative and court proceedings raliting to intellectual property, including trademarks). Service of process can be effected through the appointed attorney.
EU trademark rights are directly enforceable in Poland. If you hold an EUTM, you can bring infringement proceedings in Poland based on that EU registration without requiring a separate Polish national filing. Polish Regional Courts with IP jurisdiction are designated as EU Trademark Courts and handle EUTM infringement cases under EU rules.
The Polish market has specific dynamics worth being aware of. Online marketplaces – particularly Allegro, the dominant Polish platform – are a common venue for trademark infringement, including the sale of counterfeits. Allegro operates a brand protection programme similar to Amazon’s Brand Registry. Polish customs authorities are active at key logistics hubs and cooperate within the EU-wide customs enforcement framework.
Trademark infringement in Poland is a serious matter with potentially significant commercial and legal consequences. Whether you are enforcing your rights or defending a claim, the key is to act promptly, gather the right evidence, and obtain specialist legal advice before taking any formal step.
PATENTBOX is a Poznań-based IP firm specialising in trademark law, patent protection, and industrial designs, with extensive experience in both UPRP and EUIPO proceedings. If you have questions about trademark protection or enforcement in Poland, we are ready to help. Contact us!
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your trademark situation, please consult a qualified trademark attorney or IP law firm.