CLASS 46
Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
FRIDAY, 25 JUNE 2010
Polish patent attorneys' professionalism
The Supreme Court in its judgment of 16 June 2010, case file I CSK 481/09 held, that a party to the proceedings may request from its legal representative to compensate for damages only if the representative did not act diligent and failed to meet the prevailing standard of competence in his or her work on client’s behalf. The court pointed out that the representative (advocate, patent attorney) is responsible for the due care, and not for the result of the case. The fact that a representative has been unsuccessful in conducting a case, even if the reasoning of a judgment indicates that this was the result of his or her mistake, it does not mean legal malpractice, and that the client can claim compensation for the loss suffered by the this injury.
Posted by: Tomasz Rychlicki @ 12.57
Tags: Polish Act on Patent Attorneys, Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys, Polish Supreme Court, Polish patent attorneys, case law,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA1884
Polish patent attorneys' professionalism
Tags: Polish Act on Patent Attorneys, Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys, Polish Supreme Court, Polish patent attorneys, case law,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA1884
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 46 Archive
