| In Principle

Contracts for publication of video games are concluded between game developers and companies specialising in publishing games (sometimes referred to “dev-publisher agreements”).

Many contracts provide for a contractual penalty for reputation of the contract due to the other party’s fault and a contractual penalty for delay in performing the contract. But in such cases can both of these penalties be pursued simultaneously?

Can a summons for clarification of an abnormally low price be used with the aim of obtaining information from the contractor to verify whether the tender complies with the terms of reference for the procurement? What duties must the contracting authority observe, and when can it summon a contractor to provide an explanation? These issues were addressed in a ruling by Poland’s National Appeal Chamber of 16 June 2020 (case nos. KIO 709/20 and 715/20). The chamber considered the specific purpose of the summons for clarification.

As a result of the pandemic, many planned and existing contracts have been paralysed. The uncertain situation forces the parties to cease performing contracts or at least poses barriers to performance. In this situation, can they change the contract? Will they have to pay contractual penalties and damages? The situation now looks somewhat different than it did at the start of the pandemic.

Game jamy, hackathony, konkursy to niektóre z metod na zaktywizowanie i zaangażowanie społeczności gamedevowej (o czym świadczy choćby popularność onlinowego ogólnopolskiego game jamu #zostanwdomurobgry, zorganizowanego przez Fundację Indie Games Polska między 30 marca a 6 kwietnia 2020 r. pod patronatem Ministerstwa Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego oraz Ministerstwa Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego https://www.zostanwdomurobgry.pl/). Organizacja konkursu, jego rozpropagowanie jest relatywnie nieskomplikowane. Korzyści zaś wydają się być obopólne – uczestnicy mają możliwość zaprezentowania swojej twórczości, zaś organizator konkursu ma dostęp do różnorodnych kreatywnych propozycji. Poniżej krótko wskażemy, jakie wzywania prawnoautorskie stawiają takie konkursy.

Adjustments of transfer prices have generated a lot of uncertainty among taxpayers for a long time, as evidenced by the large number of individual tax interpretations issued in this area. Due to the change in regulations, and because the right to make an adjustment is affected by numerous factors, taxpayers seek interpretations from the revenue administration even when the facts are not very complicated.

The amendment of Poland’s Civil Procedure Code which entered into force on 7 November 2019 changed certain provisions on the formal requirements for pleadings and the consequences of failure to meet these requirements. Harsh rules, uncertainty on the proper method of curing formal defects, and varying practices of the courts may result in final rejection of a pleading and loss of the case for seemingly trivial reasons. Professional attorneys must exercise particular caution.

Telenor, a Norwegian telecom, abused its dominant position. This was the ruling pronounced by the EFTA Surveillance Authority under the rules in force in the European Economic Area. The case is worth examining, as the powers of this body also cover the European Union and may apply to the activities of Polish companies.

Sometimes a video game’s title is one of the game development company’s most important assets. Properly selected, secured and promoted, it may constitute a valuable source of income for a long time. Therefore, at an early stage of work on the game, it is worth making an appropriate application to the register, bearing in mind that in the case of trademarks, the principle of “first come, first served” applies. A well-thought-out strategy for selecting and registering a video game title can also save a lot of nerves and money after the game is launched on the market.

It is permissible to agree on a contractual penalty for non-payment or late payment of fees due to subcontractors, the Supreme Court of Poland held in its resolution of 30 June 2020 (case no. III CZP 67/19).

Shield 4.0 clarified that the possibility of temporary termination of lease contracts applies to all spaces in commercial structures with a sales area over 2,000 m2. The earlier wording of this provision raised many doubts.

Even before a state of epidemic threat was announced, some businesses anticipating the probable impact of the approaching pandemic decided to take out business interruption insurance. But can this type of coverage make up for at least some of the losses due to the pandemic?