Author:
Date of publication: 21.08.2025
Poland offers a structured and reliable framework for enforcing trademark rights, rooted in EU standards and national legislation. While it is a civil law jurisdiction, recent reforms have strengthened its specialized IP courts and modernized enforcement tools. This overview is intended for international entrepreneurs and legal professionals seeking a practical understanding of how trademark disputes unfold in Poland. It aims to bridge the gap between formal rules and actual courtroom practice.
A properly executed power of attorney (PoA) is a prerequisite for representing a party in trademark litigation. It must be in writing, signed by a person authorized to act on behalf of the party, and supported by documentation confirming the authority of the signatory—typically an excerpt from the commercial register. A certified translation into Polish is required for foreign documents. The PoA must be filed no later than with the first procedural step; otherwise, the court may disregard the representative’s actions.
Sending a cease and desist letter is not a formal prerequisite to initiating litigation in Poland. However, in practice, it often serves as a strategic move. A well-drafted letter can pressure the infringer into voluntary compliance, potentially resolving the matter without court involvement. It can also help demonstrate the plaintiff’s good faith and reinforce claims for reimbursement of litigation costs. Still, care must be taken. Polish law does not provide for unjustified threat actions per se, but aggressive or baseless letters may backfire—leading to claims under unfair competition law or even civil liability for unlawful interference or reputational harm.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not a mandatory pre-condition to filing a lawsuit. Nonetheless, under the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, claimants must state in their initial pleadings whether any attempts at mediation or settlement have been made. If not, the reasons must be explained. Courts are also empowered to encourage or even refer parties to mediation at any stage of the litigation, though such referrals remain non-binding.
Trademark disputes fall within the competence of specialized Intellectual Property Courts, introduced as part of broader reforms to improve the quality and consistency of decisions in IP matters. These courts are staffed by judges trained in trademark and unfair competition law. Importantly, they can hear related claims—such as for unfair competition, trade dress, or misleading advertising—within the same proceeding, provided the matters are legally and factually connected. There are no jury trials in Poland; all such cases are decided by professional judges.
Notably, forum shopping is possible at the interim stage: a party may seek a preliminary injunction before any competent IP court and, if granted, later file the main claim before the same court to preserve jurisdiction. This strategic tool is often used to increase the chances of obtaining effective injunctive relief.
Claims for trademark infringement are subject to statutory limitation periods, as defined by the Industrial Property Law. The general rule is that claims expire three years from the date the trademark owner became aware of both the infringement and the infringer’s identity. However, this limitation cannot exceed five years from the date of the actual infringement, regardless of the owner’s knowledge.
Importantly, any request for interim relief—such as an injunction—must be filed within six months of the claimant learning of the infringement. After this deadline, courts may reject the application for being untimely, even if the main action is still admissible. Delay in initiating proceedings, combined with the expiration of limitation periods, may result in dismissal of the claim if the defendant raises a limitation defence.
Although registered trademarks enjoy broader protection, unregistered marks may also be enforceable under the Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition. To qualify, the unregistered sign must distinguish the goods or services of one business from another, be commonly used in commerce, and be recognizable to consumers. Such claims can be joined with infringement claims concerning registered marks, offering a unified path for brand protection.
While trademark infringement falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of IP courts, matters related to validity—such as revocation or cancellation—may proceed in parallel before the Polish Patent Office (PPO). If a validity issue is raised during court proceedings, the court can stay the case pending the outcome of the PPO process. Alternatively, the defendant may file a counterclaim for invalidity within the court proceedings. In that scenario, the IP court rules on validity directly, prioritizing it procedurally before addressing infringement.
Polish courts may grant interim relief both before and during litigation, provided two conditions are met: the claim appears credible and there is a legal interest in granting the injunction. The latter refers to risks such as asset dissipation or irreparable harm that would frustrate enforcement of a future judgment.
Although court fees in IP cases are often fixed, courts still expect parties to state the value of the claim—especially in preliminary injunction requests—to assist with procedural planning. Defendants are usually heard before an injunction is granted. However, if the court deems it necessary to act swiftly, it may waive this requirement, and the interim proceeding becomes ex parte—non-public and without the infringer’s participation. This allows for effective enforcement, such as seizure of infringing goods, without prior notice to the opposing party.
If a wrongfully granted injunction causes damage, the defendant may seek compensation, though such claims are rare in practice and typically modest.
Exclusive and non-exclusive licensees can initiate infringement proceedings, but they typically require the trademark owner's consent unless otherwise stipulated in the license agreement. An exclusive licensee may sue independently if the proprietor fails to act after a formal request. The licensee’s right to litigate stems from the contractual authorization, not from registration in the trademark registry.
Under Polish and EU case law, a trademark owner does not need to show actual consumer confusion—demonstrating a likelihood is sufficient. Infringement is established by proving three core elements: similarity of marks, similarity of goods or services, and a risk of confusion between them. This standard also informs the court’s approach to preliminary injunctions, where a credible claim supported by legal interest may suffice to temporarily restrict the use of a contested sign.
Polish courts are equipped with a set of procedural tools for gathering evidence and information. They may order the preservation of evidence before litigation begins or require disclosure of specific documents during proceedings. This includes accounting records, contracts, warehouse inventories, and digital data.
Furthermore, the Industrial Property Law provides for targeted requests for information, not only from the alleged infringer but also from third parties like distributors or suppliers. Such requests can reveal details about the production, sale, and origin of disputed goods.
Parties can submit expert opinions and consumer surveys to support their case, especially on issues such as confusion or brand reputation. There are no rigid legal requirements for surveys, but courts demand methodological rigor—neutral questions, representative samples, and professional oversight. While court permission is not needed for private surveys, their evidentiary weight depends heavily on quality. Courts may appoint their own experts to assess or supplement party-submitted data.
Trademark infringement proceedings typically take between 24 and 36 months at first instance, though simpler matters may conclude more quickly. Litigation costs vary with complexity and duration. Statutory court fees are relatively predictable, but attorney’s fees, expert reports, and translation services may raise the total significantly—ranging from several hundred to several thousand euros.
While the winning party may recover some legal costs, reimbursement is based on statutory rates and rarely reflects the full amount spent. Courts may adjust awarded fees upward if a detailed cost statement is submitted, though partial success by both sides often leads to a proportional cost split.
Both parties may appeal first-instance judgments on factual or procedural grounds without prior court permission. The appeal must be filed within two weeks of receiving the reasoned decision. Judgments are typically not enforceable until final, unless declared immediately enforceable by the court.
If a party fails to comply with a final judgment, enforcement may proceed via court bailiff. This can involve seizing bank accounts, garnishing wages, or registering the debtor in credit databases. Courts may also impose financial penalties for non-compliance, and in some cases, the prevailing party may execute enforcement actions at the losing party’s expense.
Polish courts generally resolve both liability and the amount of compensation in a single proceeding. However, at the plaintiff’s request or upon the defendant’s objection, the case may be split into two stages: a preliminary judgment on the merits (liability), followed by a final judgment on damages. This approach helps avoid unnecessary time and costs related to quantifying claims in matters where liability may ultimately be dismissed.
Compensation may be based on actual losses, hypothetical licensing fees, or unjust enrichment. Beyond monetary awards, remedies include injunctions, destruction or removal of infringing goods, public announcements of the judgment, modification of infringing materials, and cost reimbursement. The set of remedies applied will depend on the infringement’s scope and impact.
This high-level summary provides a roadmap for trademark enforcement in Poland. Foreign rights holders are encouraged to consult with qualified local counsel to adapt their enforcement strategy and protect their IP portfolio effectively.
If you require support in navigating trademark infringement issues in Poland, our legal team is here to help. Please do not hesitate to contact us for tailored advice and assistance.