The 2025 EUIPO guidelines list Poland among other countries that do not protect unregistered trademarks unless they are considered well known within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention (Part C, Section 4, Subsection 3.2.2.).

However, is this conclusion correct?

1. Protection of unregistered trademarks in the EU

Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 provides for the possibility of opposing the registration of an EU trademark based on an earlier, unregistered sign (Article 8(4)). However, four conditions must be met simultaneously:

• the sign is used in the course of trade,
• the sign has more than local significance,
• rights have been acquired in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the sign was used before the date of application for the EU trade mark,
• there is a right to prohibit the use of the later mark.

In practice, many proprietors of unregistered signs attempt to take advantage of the above provision (the most recent cases before the CJEU include: T-557/24; T-406/24). However, oppositions are often considered unfounded because the significance of the sign beyond the local area has not been proven (e.g. CJEU judgment of 24 September 2025, T-557/24), or because there is no statutory protection for unregistered signs in a particular Member State (e.g. BoA decision of 5 November 2007, R1446/2006-4).

2. Protection of unregistered trademarks in Poland

The statement that ‘Poland does not protect unregistered trademarks’ is a significant oversimplification. Under Polish law, unregistered marks are protected, inter alia, by the Act on Combating Unfair Competition (ACUC):

• Article 10 of the Act — provides protection against misleading information regarding the commercial origin of goods and services.
• Article 3 of the Act — provides protection for the reputation of a mark.

However, this protection is a tort in nature and does not constitute an exclusive right.

3. Possibility of filing an opposition based on an unregistered trademark in Poland

Pursuant to Article 132(1)(1) of the Industrial Property Law Act (IPL), no protection shall be granted to a trademark where the use thereof infringes the personal or property rights of third parties. The aforementioned personal or property rights indisputably include, in particular, the right to a name, image, company name, copyright and industrial property rights. Pursuant to Article 132(1)(1)(5) of the IPL, it is possible to file an opposition based on an earlier unregistered sign that is well-known.

A dispute has arisen as to whether the above-mentioned relative ground for refusal of registration also covers rights arising from the protection of unregistered trade marks that are not well-known. On the one hand, it is pointed out that if the legislator had wanted the rights arising from an unregistered trade mark to constitute a relative ground for refusal of registration, it would have explicitly stated this in the provision. It is also emphasised that Article 132(1)(1) of the IPL, concerning relative grounds for refusal of registration, refers to ‘rights’, while the protection of unregistered marks is exclusively a tort nature.

On the other hand, it is pointed out that the aforementioned provision implements Article 5(4) of Directive 2015/2436, according to which the basis for opposition may be ‘in particular’ the right to a surname, which means that the list of these rights is an open list.

4. Claims raised by an entity using an unregistered trademark against the proprietor of a registered trademark

Currently, the dominant view is that the court should take into account the priority of use in trade and, in appropriate circumstances, rule in favour of the entity using the earlier, unregistered sign. The key conditions for the protection of an unregistered sign are:

• priority of use,
• the relevant market significance of the sign, resulting from its continuous use.

The intensity and scope of use affect the extent of protection. The stronger the market position of the sign, the greater the chances of successfully opposing the rights arising from the registered mark.

5. Summary – are unregistered marks therefore protected?

Although protection of an unregistered mark does not create exclusive rights, it seems that the concept of ‘rights’ in Article 132(1)(1)(1) of the IPL, referring to relative grounds for refusal of registration, should be interpreted broadly. Such an interpretation should be consistent with Directive 2015/2436. It is therefore understandable that there are suggestions that an unregistered mark with significance beyond the local area should be able to form the basis for opposition to the registration of a later mark. If we allow the effects of priority of use, it is also logical to allow the holder of an unregistered mark to oppose the registration of a similar mark. Regardless of the above, the indication of Poland in the EUIPO guidelines as a country that allegedly does not protect unregistered signs is a significant oversimplification. I have expressed my views on this subject in a similar manner and in greater detail in the publication titled “Conflicts between trademark protection rights and unregistered indications of origin of goods” (M. Żuraw [in:] PIPWI UJ 2006, vol. 95, pp. 167−219)