The Polish Industrial Property Act governs trademark matters in Poland. Following an amendment to the Act, the system for obtaining and maintaining trademark protection was significantly overhauled. The previous examination-based system was replaced by a registration system — a shift that introduced important new obligations for trademark owners, the most significant of which is the duty to actively monitor trademark databases.
The new procedure
The revised procedure is designed to streamline the path to obtaining trademark protection. It consists of several key stages.
Stage 1 — Publication in the Register Plus database
Once an application is submitted to the Polish Patent Office (PPO), the Office has up to two months to publish the application details in the Register Plus database. This database lists all pending trademark applications, along with key information such as the priority date and the goods or services covered. It is worth noting that not all marks listed in Register Plus will ultimately be granted protection — absolute grounds for refusal are examined in the next stage.
Stage 2 — Examination of absolute grounds
The PPO examines whether any absolute grounds for refusal apply. These are set out in Article 129¹ of the Industrial Property Act and include, among others, marks that are not capable of distinguishing goods or services in trade, consist exclusively of descriptive elements, have entered everyday language, were filed in bad faith, or are contrary to public policy or morality.
Stage 3 — Publication in the Patent Bulletin and notification
If the application passes the absolute grounds examination, it is published in the Official Bulletin of the Polish Patent Office (BUP). At the same time, the PPO prepares a notification identifying any earlier identical or similar marks registered for the same or similar goods or services. This notification is sent to the applicant only and is not binding — it serves as an informal alert that a potential conflict may exist, but it does not obligate the applicant to make any changes, and the owner of the earlier mark is not informed.
Stage 4 — Opposition period
From the date of publication in the BUP, the owner of an earlier trademark has three months to file an opposition if they believe the new application infringes their exclusive rights. Under Article 132¹ of the Industrial Property Act, an opposition may be based on four grounds: infringement of third-party personal or property rights; identity or similarity to an earlier trademark covering identical or similar goods or services; identity or similarity to a well-known trademark; or identity or similarity to a commonly known trademark.
Stage 5 — Grant of protection
If no opposition is filed within the three-month window and the PPO has not identified any absolute grounds for refusal, the right of protection is granted.
What changed — and why it matters
Under the previous system, the PPO was required to examine both absolute and relative grounds for refusal. Relative grounds included the existence of earlier identical or similar marks — and if such a mark was found, protection would be denied.
Under the current rules, the existence of an earlier similar or identical mark is no longer an automatic bar to registration. The PPO still searches for earlier marks, but solely for the purpose of notifying the applicant. That notification goes only to the applicant and carries no binding effect. The owner of the earlier mark receives no notification at all — meaning a conflicting mark can be successfully registered without their knowledge.
The monitoring obligation
This shift in the system places the responsibility for protecting registered trademarks squarely on their owners. Monitoring trademark databases for potentially conflicting new filings is no longer optional — it is a necessary part of maintaining effective protection.
Trademark owners should check the PPO’s Official Bulletin regularly. It is published on the PPO website every Monday. When a conflicting application appears, the three-month opposition window provides a focused, cost-effective mechanism for resolving the issue early — before it escalates into lengthy and expensive litigation.
Awareness of this obligation is one of the most practical steps a trademark owner can take to safeguard the brand equity they have built.