This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS WARSAW 000563 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED. 
 
STATE FOR EUR/NCE/MSESSUMS 
STATE PASS USTR FOR DONNELLY/ERRION 
COMMERCE FOR 4232/ITA/MAC/EUR/OECA/MROGERS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD KIPR PL
SUBJECT: POLAND: Counterfeiting Poses Problem for U.S. Firm 
 
------------------------------------------- 
LEVIS KNOCKOFFS AND SUPREME COURT DECISIONS 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶1. (U) In order to clarify issues related to Levi's Special 
301 submission, Econoff met with Zbigniew Trendak, Brand 
Protection and Security Manager for Levi Strauss.  Trendak 
reiterated the charges made in Levi's Special 301 brief, 
noting that prosecution of counterfeit cases has dropped 28 
percent since the Polish Supreme Court ruling of May 2005. 
According to Levis representatives, this ruling concerned a 
case dealing with counterfeit coffee. 
 
¶2. (U) The ruling of the Supreme Court centered on the 
Article 305 Section 1 of the Polish Industrial Property Law 
of 30 June 2000.  At issue is whether the term "putting into 
circulation" would cover those selling counterfeit products, 
or only those who manufacture or import them.  According to 
Levis attorneys, the Court endorsed a narrow interpretation 
of law, limiting prosecution to manufacturers and importers 
only.  Trendak said that most of the counterfeit jeans being 
sold in Poland come from Turkey and China, making 
prosecution here of manufacturers a nonstarter.  He also 
said that the ruling has resulted in a "cascade effect," 
with District Courts and prosecutors declining to follow up 
on cases brought by the industry involving simple sales and 
distribution of counterfeit goods. 
 
¶3. (SBU) According to correspondence between Levis and 
Procter and Gamble in Moscow in October last year, affected 
companies (NOTE: Trendak noted Nike and Phillip Morris 
having similar problems) believe that the Supreme Court 
ruling conflicts with EU law.  At this time, however, no 
firm action has apparently taken place to address the issue 
in Brussels. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) Unaffected by this ruling - so far - are optical 
disc (OD) manufacturers.  Sources at the Union of Audio 
Video Manufacturers (ZPAV) told Econoff that they believe 
the ruling is narrower than Levis attorneys indicate, but 
that in any event strengthened copyright legislation and 
enforcement measures give OD manufacturers greater 
protection than trademarks.  We have discussed this issue 
with our LEGATT colleagues here at the Embassy as well, and 
will follow up with contacts at the Ministry of Justice to 
gain a more fulsome understanding of the nature and scope of 
the May 2005 ruling. 
ASHE