The nickname is not the same as the nickname and is not a personal good – the echo of a loud litigation

On 23 October 2020 The Supreme Court dismissed a cassation complaint in a dispute between Dariusz Michalczewski and FoodCare sp. z o.o. for payment 21,765,310.48 PLN the title of compensation for violating his personal property by using the athlete's nickname to sell an energy drink under that name.

The former boxer was in the position that the nickname belongs to personal property protected under the provisions of the Civil Code, and FoodCare sp. z o.o. used the designation "Tiger" for the drinks it produced and sold illegally.

The case found its final in the Supreme Court after the first instance of the District Court in Krakow ruled for Dariusz Michalczewski from FoodCare the amount 2,401,961 PLN 37 gr, but as a result of the appeal of FoodCare sp. z o.o. the Court of Appeal in Krakow finally dismissed the action.

Personal Product Directory

The Civil Code indicates that human personal property remains protected by civil law regardless of the protection provided for in other legislation.

Civil code does not contain the definition of personal good, but in Article 23 The KC legislature used an example of the calculation of such goods and used the wording “as in particular”, indicating the existence of an open catalogue of such goods, and the provision itself does not indicate them all.

one For example, the Civil Code's personal property is also a pseudonym, but a dispute arose on the grounds of the loud cause between the former boxer and the company, whether it belongs to them also a nickname.

Aliase and nickname

The Kraków Court of Appeal justified its judgment by the fact that a pseudonym is an individual name of a given person, other than an official name, and is usually used on special occasions for various purposes: to hide its official identity, to make it easier to remember a given person or to emphasize any personal characteristics or appearance of a given person.

But the nickname is third In addition to the person’s name, and in the event of an appearance without the person’s name, it does not constitute an individualisation. Consequently, it is protected as a personal good including a name, and only in such a form individualises the person.

The nickname is not protected

Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed to the position of the Court of Appeal in Krakow and dismissed its ruling with a cassation complaint[1].

The ruling of the Supreme Court corresponds to a position in the case-law that the nickname constitutes an additional designation of the person concerned and, when it occurs only next to the name and does not constitute an exclusive element of individualisation of the person concerned, the use of it by other persons does not constitute a violation of personal property.

Author: Michał Skwarek - a solicitor's application in the legal department Russell Bedford Poland. Graduated from the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw.