Receiving an official letter accusing another entity of unlawfully using their trademark and demanding an immediate cessation of certain activities is a highly stressful experience for any business. However, responding to such a request (often called a cease and desist) requires careful consideration and precise legal action, as hasty action—whether ignoring the letter or unconditionally complying with all demands—can have severe financial and reputational consequences.
In the Polish legal system, these issues are regulated by the Industrial Property Law Act of 30 June 2000. It's worth remembering that, pursuant to Article 296, Section 1 of this Act, the trademark holder has powerful procedural tools at his disposal; however, the mere formulation of allegations in a pre-trial document does not necessarily determine their validity. The key to a defense is to determine whether an identical or similar mark has actually been used in business to a degree that could mislead consumers as to the origin of the goods or services.
Reliable verification of the broadcaster's legal status
The first and fundamental step after receiving a summons is to carefully check the credentials of the entity that sent it.
- Verification in the registers: Find the protection right number indicated in the letter in the databases of the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (UPRP), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
- Scope of protection: You need to check for which specific goods and services (according to the so-called Nice Classification) the mark has been registered and whether this protection is even valid (protection rights expire if they are not extended after 10 years).
- Objection of non-use: Polish and EU law stipulate that a trademark must be actually used in the market. If the analysis shows that the trademark holder registered the trademark more than five years ago but is not actually using it for the goods or services in question, this opens the door to an effective defense or even a motion to revoke the trademark.
Legal analysis of similarity and risk of confusion
If the broadcaster's right exists and is valid, the next step is to assess whether an infringement has occurred. A finding of infringement is based not on a competitor's subjective perception, but on objective legal criteria. The entrepreneur must conduct (often with the support of a professional attorney) a comparative analysis of both marks on three levels: visual, phonetic, and semantic. Simultaneously, the degree of relatedness of the goods or services offered must be examined. Only the cumulative fulfillment of these criteria, leading to a real risk of consumer confusion, allows for the claims made in the summons to be deemed valid.
Formulating a strategy and responding to the call
With this analytical foundation in place, it's time to move on to a constructive pre-litigation response. Leaving a summons unanswered is the worst-case scenario – it usually results in a lawsuit being filed, which dramatically increases the costs of the dispute.
To sum up
Receiving a cease-and-desist notice for trademark infringement requires a business to undertake decisive yet carefully considered analytical action. The key to effective defense—or minimizing losses—is a thorough verification of the formal status of the opponent's rights and a dispassionate assessment of the degree of similarity between the two marks in commercial transactions. Remember that the pre-litigation phase of industrial property disputes is the best time to reach an amicable and flexible resolution of the conflict, avoiding lengthy and costly litigation.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of May 21, 2026.
author:
