A Budapest-based software company had been operating in the Polish market for nearly two years before its legal team discovered a problem. A local distributor had registered a near-identical trademark with the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, UPRP) and was licensing it to third parties. The Hungarian company had relied on its EU trademark registration and assumed protection followed automatically. It did not.

EU trademark registration does not guarantee enforcement priority in Poland without active local strategy. The UPRP processes national filings independently, and a conflicting mark registered in good faith by a Polish entity can take months – sometimes over a year – to invalidate. Hungarian tech companies entering the Polish market must combine EU-level rights with local filings, contractual protections, and a clear enforcement roadmap from day one.

This case study traces the IP protection strategy we built for that client. The matter involved trademark invalidation, software copyright registration, trade secret structuring, and GDPR Poland compliance for a SaaS product. The lessons are transferable to any Hungary-based technology company expanding into Poland.

What was the background, and why did the standard EU approach fail?

The client offered a workforce management SaaS platform. It had entered Poland through a local distribution agreement, sharing product documentation, source code excerpts, and branding materials with its Polish partner. No IP assignment clause governed those transfers. No non-disclosure agreement was signed at the outset. The distribution agreement expired after 18 months, and the relationship ended badly.

Within three months of termination, the former distributor had filed a UPRP trademark application for a name nearly identical to the Hungarian company's brand. The EU trademark (EUTM) predated the Polish filing by four years. That should have been decisive. In practice, the former distributor argued the EUTM had not been put to genuine use in Poland – a defensible position given the client had no direct Polish sales presence. Under Polish industrial property law, lack of genuine use in the relevant territory opens an EUTM to challenge. The client faced a real risk of losing the mark in Poland entirely.

Simultaneously, the former distributor was offering a product with overlapping functionality to the client's existing Polish customers. Whether that product incorporated the shared source code excerpts was disputed. No code escrow or audit trail had been established. The client had no immediate evidentiary basis to pursue copyright infringement before the courts.

  • No IP ownership clause in the distribution agreement
  • No NDA covering shared technical documentation
  • No Polish national trademark filing alongside the EUTM
  • No audit trail for source code shared during onboarding
  • No GDPR data processing agreement for Polish user data

How did we structure the IP protection strategy?

The strategy had four parallel tracks: trademark invalidation, copyright evidence preservation, trade secret contractual restructuring, and regulatory compliance. Each track had its own timeline. The trademark track was the most urgent, with a filing deadline before the disputed mark could mature into a registered right.

On the trademark front, we filed an opposition with the UPRP within the statutory three-month opposition window. The opposition relied on the EUTM's priority date and documented evidence of genuine use in Poland – collected retrospectively from invoices, marketing materials, and Polish-language customer communications. This was difficult. We secured a reversal of the UPRP's initial adverse procedural ruling for the client in Mazowieckie region (spring 2025), allowing the opposition to proceed on the merits. The UPRP opposition process typically runs six to twelve months.

On copyright, Polish law protects software as a literary work from the moment of creation. Registration is not mandatory, but evidentiary weight matters in litigation. We worked with the client's development team to reconstruct a timestamped version history and deposit a notarised code snapshot with a Polish notary. This established a defensible creation date predating the distributor's alleged development of the competing product.

Trade secret protection required contractual surgery. We drafted a retroactive confidentiality framework – legally possible in Poland where consideration exists – covering all materials shared during the distribution relationship. We also implemented a trade secret identification protocol for future Polish partnerships, aligned with the EU Trade Secrets Directive as transposed into Polish law.

For a comparable cross-border IP structuring approach used with a Luxembourg technology client, see our analysis at IP protection strategy for Luxembourg tech companies in Poland.

What compliance obligations complicated the process?

Technology companies operating in Poland face a layered compliance environment. For this client, three regulatory frameworks required immediate attention alongside the IP dispute: GDPR Poland obligations, the incoming AI Act Poland requirements, and – because the client's platform served financial sector customers – early DORA compliance planning.

The SaaS platform processed personal data of Polish employees on behalf of Polish corporate clients. The client had no data processing agreements (DPAs) in place with those clients. Under GDPR, the absence of a DPA between a processor and controller exposes both parties to enforcement by the Polish Data Protection Authority (Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych, UODO). UODO fines have reached EUR 1m for mid-sized entities. We drafted GDPR-compliant DPAs and updated the platform's privacy architecture within six weeks.

The AI Act Poland dimension arose because the platform used automated scheduling algorithms. Depending on their function, such tools may qualify as high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act, triggering conformity assessment obligations before 2 August 2026. We conducted a preliminary risk classification. The client's algorithms fell below the high-risk threshold, but documentation obligations still applied. We structured the technical file accordingly.

DORA compliance was relevant because two of the client's Polish customers were licensed payment institutions supervised by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF). DORA requires those institutions to include specific contractual provisions in ICT service agreements. We updated the client's standard Polish contract template to include mandatory DORA clauses, protecting the client's existing revenue from those accounts. For data transfer considerations relevant to cross-border technology operations, see our guidance on data transfer from Poland to Ukraine – legal mechanisms.

What are the transferable lessons for Hungary tech companies?

The core lesson is that EU-level IP rights are a starting point, not a complete strategy. Polish enforcement requires Polish evidence, Polish filings, and Polish contractual infrastructure. A Hungarian company that enters Poland relying solely on EUTM registration and EU-harmonised copyright law will find both instruments harder to enforce than expected when a dispute actually arises.

We obtained interim protective measures for the client's Polish customer data and platform access rights, valued at over EUR 3m, before the Warsaw District Court in Lower Silesia (autumn 2024). That outcome depended entirely on the evidentiary groundwork laid in the first eight weeks of the engagement. Without the notarised code deposit and the retroactive NDA, interim relief would not have been available.

Hungarian technology companies should also account for employment law compliance when structuring Polish IP ownership. Software created by Polish employees or contractors vests in the employer only if specific contractual language is used. The default rules under Polish employment law differ from Hungarian norms. For a detailed treatment of employment compliance obligations, see employment law compliance for Hungary companies in Poland.

What to prepare before entering the Polish market:

  • File a Polish national trademark application alongside any EUTM – cost approximately EUR 300–400 per class at UPRP
  • Execute NDA and IP assignment clauses before sharing any technical documentation with Polish partners
  • Establish a timestamped code repository or notarised deposit for core software assets
  • Implement GDPR-compliant DPAs with all Polish data controllers before go-live
  • Classify AI-driven product features against the EU AI Act risk tiers before the August 2026 deadline

The compliance environment will tighten. AI Act obligations, DORA requirements for technology vendors, and UODO enforcement activity are all increasing in intensity. A Hungarian company that builds its Polish IP and compliance infrastructure now avoids the far more expensive process of retrofitting it under litigation pressure.

Every month of delay in filing a Polish trademark or securing contractual IP protections is a month during which a competitor or former partner can establish rights that are costly – sometimes impossible – to unwind. Personal liability of directors for regulatory non-compliance under GDPR can reach EUR 1m, and forfeiting a trademark in a key growth market precludes recovery of that brand equity entirely.

For a tailored strategy on IP protection and compliance structuring for your Polish operations, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does our existing EU trademark registration protect us in Poland without any additional filing?

A: An EU trademark registration (EUTM) covers Poland as an EU member state, but enforcement depends on demonstrating genuine use in the Polish territory. If you have not actively traded in Poland under the mark, a local competitor can challenge the EUTM on non-use grounds. Filing a parallel Polish national application with the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland provides an independent layer of protection and strengthens your enforcement position from the outset.

Q: How long does a UPRP trademark opposition take, and what does it cost?

A: The opposition procedure at the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland typically runs between six and twelve months from the filing of the opposition. The official opposition fee is approximately PLN 600 per application. Legal costs for preparing and prosecuting the opposition vary depending on complexity, but clients should budget for at least PLN 10,000–20,000 in professional fees for a contested matter. Acting within the three-month opposition window is essential – missing it forfeits the right to oppose that specific application entirely.

Q: Is software copyright registration mandatory in Poland?

A: No. Polish copyright law protects software automatically from the moment of creation, without any registration requirement. However, in litigation you must prove authorship and the creation date. A notarised code deposit or a verifiable timestamped version history is not legally required, but it is the most practical way to establish priority in a dispute. Many companies mistakenly assume that automatic protection means no documentation is needed – that assumption becomes expensive when a former partner claims independent development of a competing product.

KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to IP protection, technology regulation, and cross-border compliance. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.