Unfair competition under Polish law means conduct that breaches the law or good commercial practice and threatens or harms the interests of a business or a customer. A business may seek an order to stop the conduct, removal of its effects and, where further conditions are met, payment. However, losing a customer, facing a lower price or seeing an employee leave is not enough on its own. The claimant must identify an unlawful method of competing.
This guide explains business protection under Poland’s Act on Combating Unfair Competition. It covers identifying a breach, preserving evidence and selecting remedies. Trade marks, personal data and antitrust restrictions may require a separate assessment alongside this Act. An overseas business operating in Poland should therefore check the applicable law and forum before using remedies familiar from its home jurisdiction.
Law reviewed as at 9 October 2026. A publication of Tomasz Piotr Chudzinski and Partners Law Firm.
When does commercial rivalry become unfair competition?
The starting point is Article 3 of the Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition. It connects the assessment of conduct with a threat to, or infringement of, a specific interest. A belief that a competitor acted disloyally is therefore insufficient. The business should describe the conduct, identify the relevant rule and explain how the conduct affects it or its customers.
The Act lists specific wrongs, but the list is not exhaustive. They include misuse of trade secrets, misleading business identifiers and unfair advertising. The general standard of good commercial practice can also matter in particular circumstances. It does not, however, create an unrestricted right to prevent others from entering a market that an established business developed first.
What remains lawful?
A business may offer a better price, develop a similar commercial model and recruit specialists who have worked for a competitor. Customers are generally free to change suppliers. Employees may also use their general skills. However, the circumstances remain crucial: the source of information, existing obligations, the method of winning a contract and the statements made to the market.
Separate three questions when assessing a dispute. First, what commercial harm has occurred? Second, what evidence establishes the competitor’s conduct? Third, which legal rule or standard of fair dealing does that conduct breach? Answering all three helps determine whether unfair competition is the appropriate basis for protection.
A lesson from case law: commercial loss does not prove illegality
The Supreme Court’s official notice on its judgment of 3 July 2025, II CSKP 275/23, discusses parallel trade in genuine goods. Trading outside an authorised distribution network did not by itself establish parasitic competition. The balance between business and customer interests also mattered. This does not mean that every import or use of a trade mark is lawful. Trade mark protection and exhaustion of rights need their own assessment. This discussion relies on the Supreme Court’s official case notice, available in Polish.
Unfair competition and trade secrets
Article 11 protects qualifying information, rather than a company’s belief that everything it holds is confidential. The information must have commercial value. It must also be neither generally known nor readily accessible to people who normally deal with that type of information. In addition, the business must have taken steps, with due care, to keep it confidential.
Protected information may include non-public purchase terms, margin calculations, recipes, tender plans or a structured database of individual customer preferences. By contrast, a customer’s publicly available telephone number does not become a trade secret merely because an employee enters it into a company spreadsheet. A collection of data may nevertheless qualify because of its combined content and value.
Why may an NDA be insufficient?
A non-disclosure agreement helps define obligations and show that the recipient knew about restrictions. In practice, the business should also examine who could access the files, whether access matched their duties and what happened when an employee left. A document marked confidential but shared without restrictions with every commercial partner may create serious evidential difficulties.
Useful safeguards include role-based permissions, access logs, data-transfer rules and records of returned equipment. The policy should identify specific categories of protected information. A general prohibition on disclosing everything connected with the company does not replace identifying the knowledge being protected. These measures can form part of ongoing legal support and contract review for a business in Poland.
Information can also be obtained lawfully
The Act recognises independent discovery or creation of information. Subject to the statutory conditions, it also permits observing and testing a product that is publicly available or lawfully possessed. Any valid restrictions on the right to obtain the information must be considered. Similar knowledge does not necessarily originate from misuse of a competitor’s secret.
There are also statutory exceptions concerning, among other matters, protection of a legitimate interest and disclosure of wrongdoing in the public interest. An incident procedure should therefore not automatically classify every report of a problem as unlawful disclosure. Before bringing a claim, the business should assess the purpose, scope and legal basis of the communication.
Winning customers, recruiting staff and using identifiers
Unfair competition can involve inducing someone not to perform their duties or to perform them improperly. Article 12 also covers specified cases of inducing customers to terminate contracts. The statutory purpose of obtaining a benefit for oneself or another person, or harming a business, matters. An attractive commercial offer alone does not establish these elements.
A job offer is different from inducing a breach
Recruiting a specialist is not the same as instructing that person to take documents. A job offer and an offer conditional on supplying non-public price lists or arranging a contractual breach require different assessments. The evidence should establish what was said, when contact occurred and which obligations applied to the person approached.
A contractual non-compete obligation also requires analysis of its validity and scope. The absence of such a clause does not authorise misuse of another business’s secrets. Conversely, the existence of a clause does not automatically justify every claim against a new employer. Each defendant’s liability requires an explanation of that defendant’s own conduct.
Confusing names and packaging
Articles 5 and 10 address different ways of misleading customers. The problem may concern a business name, product designation or packaging. Relevant factors include earlier lawful use, similarities and differences, and the likelihood of customers making a mistake. A shared colour scheme does not settle the issue by itself.
Preserve evidence of your own use of the identifier, historical offers and the competitor’s materials. Messages from customers who confused the businesses may also help. If a registered trade mark exists, its scope of protection needs separate review. Remedies under unfair competition law and trade mark law are not interchangeable.
False statements and comparative advertising
False or misleading commercial statements may concern products, personnel, pricing or a business’s financial position. Article 14 also requires the relevant purpose: obtaining a benefit or causing harm. Establish who made the statement, who received it, how widely it circulated and the context in which it was used.
A critical opinion is not always a statement of fact. Nor should a business assume that a competitor is behind every negative review. Online publications may also require separate reputation protection measures. The Law Firm’s related guidance on responding to unlawful online reviews explains that aspect in more detail.
May a business compare its offer with a competitor’s?
Yes, but comparative advertising must satisfy all the conditions in Article 16(3). The comparison should be fair and verifiable. It must not mislead customers or cause confusion between businesses. The Act also restricts discrediting competitors, unfairly exploiting reputation and presenting a product as an imitation. Check the complete set of conditions before launching the campaign.
A lower-price claim requires clarity about the products, terms and date being compared. Comparing a promotional price with a competitor’s standard price may distort the message. Article 18a also provides a specific burden-of-proof rule for the truth of certain labels and advertising statements. Businesses should therefore retain the material supporting their own claims.
How do you prove unfair competition?
Evidence should address the specific elements of the alleged wrong. A screenshot may show a statement without proving its author, publication date or reach. Preserve the page address, capture time, full context and original file where available. For correspondence, attachments and information showing the complete exchange can be equally important.
| Situation | What needs to be established? | Potentially useful material |
|---|---|---|
| Use of a confidential database | Value, secrecy, safeguards and actual use | Database versions, permissions, logs, agreements and correspondence |
| A confusing identifier | Protected use and risk of confusion | Historical offers, packaging and customer messages |
| A false statement | Content, falsity, purpose and dissemination | Complete publication, address, dates, recipients and source documents |
| Inducing breach of contract | The obligation, inducement and statutory purpose | Contract, messages, chronology and witness evidence |
Do not obtain evidence by accessing someone else’s email or systems without authority. Ownership of a work device does not give an unlimited right to inspect every item of its user’s private data. The scope of any investigation must account for access rights, employment law and data protection. Where necessary, use lawful procedural mechanisms instead.
Hypothetical example: exporting a database before leaving
Suppose a salesperson downloads a list of individual discounts and then joins another company. Some customers subsequently receive slightly better offers from that company. The coincidence warrants investigation, but it does not prove every element of a claim. The business must establish confidentiality, the salesperson’s access, how the information was transferred and which entity used it.
The assessment may change if the customers independently requested quotations and disclosed their own terms. Therefore, investigate facts that challenge your initial theory as well as facts that support it. This reduces the risk of an expensive dispute over conduct that remained within lawful competition.
What remedies can a business seek?
Article 18 offers several remedies. Choose them according to the business objective. An ongoing advertising campaign, disclosure of a secret and loss arising from a contract may require different requests. A claim should describe what the defendant must do precisely enough for the resulting order to be performed and enforced.
- Cessation: stopping specifically identified unlawful conduct.
- Removal of effects: remedial measures suited to the particular wrong.
- A statement: appropriate wording and publication method, rather than an arbitrarily punitive public sanction.
- Damages: compensation for loss under the general legal rules.
- Recovery of benefits: surrender of unjustly obtained benefits under the general rules.
- A payment for a social purpose: where the statutory conditions, including fault, are met.
Why is lost turnover not automatically recoverable damage?
The claimant must establish loss, its causal connection with the defendant’s conduct and the other conditions of the relevant remedy. Lost revenue is not automatically lost profit. Costs that the business did not incur, and the realistic prospect of performing the contract, also matter. Orders, margins, production capacity and the history of the relationship may help support the calculation.
A claimant does not always need to prove that damage has already occurred before seeking cessation. A threat to its interests may justify the appropriate protection. Financial claims, however, need a separate basis. Damages and recovery of benefits should not be combined in a way that compensates the same loss twice.
Special rules for trade secrets
The Act provides additional solutions for trade-secret cases, including certain forms of publication of information about the judgment. The publication must not itself disclose the protected secret. Specific monetary alternatives may also be available where their statutory requirements are satisfied. Compare them with a prohibition on use and with the business’s actual commercial interests.
Courts, interim protection and limitation periods
Cases concerning the prevention and combating of unfair competition fall within the intellectual-property procedure under Article 47989 of Poland’s Code of Civil Procedure, or KPC. The competent regional courts hear them. Special jurisdiction of the Regional Court in Warsaw includes, among other matters, technical trade secrets. This does not mean that every dispute over confidential business information belongs in Warsaw.
Representation by a Polish advocate, legal adviser or patent attorney is generally mandatory. Article 872 KPC provides an exception where the value in dispute does not exceed PLN 20,000. The court may also waive mandatory representation under the statutory conditions. Assess the forum, claim value and requested remedies together before filing proceedings.
Can the conduct be stopped before judgment?
Interim protection can preserve the claimant’s position during litigation. However, the applicant must make a prima facie showing of the claim and a legal interest in protection. The requested measure must be proportionate. Blocking a competitor’s entire business may be inappropriate where the complaint concerns one advertisement or one particular file.
In intellectual-property cases, the court generally hears the other party before granting certain interim measures, subject to statutory exceptions. A claimant should not assume that an order will always issue without the opponent’s participation. If the case also concerns infringement of an exclusive right, examine the specific six-month condition in Article 755 § 23 KPC. It is not a universal deadline for every unfair competition claim.
Preserving evidence is a different remedy
Where material may be lost, the evidence-preservation procedure in Article 47997 and the following provisions of KPC can be relevant. An application should identify the evidence, the preservation method and the legal interest. It does not authorise a general search of a competitor’s resources in the hope of discovering misconduct. The court also considers protection of the other party’s confidential information.
The procedural framework and interim measures are set out in the current consolidated working text of the Code of Civil Procedure, available in Polish. In a particular case, commencement dates of amendments and transitional rules must also be checked.
How are limitation periods assessed?
Article 20 of the Act provides a three-year period, assessed separately for each infringement. A damages claim also requires application of Article 4421 of the Civil Code. Relevant matters include knowledge of the damage and the person responsible. Additional special rules apply in certain circumstances.
It is therefore insufficient to record a deadline three years after the last contact with the competitor. Prepare a separate chronology of acts and remedies. Sending a pre-action demand does not, by itself, interrupt limitation. The Polish Civil Code governs interruption and suspension; check the actual legal effect of the intended step.
A practical response to unfair competition
- Define the incident. Identify who acted, when and how. Separate verified facts from suspicions.
- Preserve lawfully available evidence. Keep originals, context and information about where files came from.
- Contain further disclosure. Review permissions and procedures while retaining the material needed to investigate.
- Identify the legal basis. Compare the conduct with the Act, relevant contracts and any exclusive rights.
- Choose the objective. Consider urgent prohibition, correction of statements, financial recovery or settlement.
- Check deadlines and costs. Account for limitation, specialist evidence and exposure to litigation costs.
- Plan communications. A demand should state a concrete allegation and an enforceable request, without unsupported accusations.
A demand does not invariably have to precede urgent court action. Warning the recipient can sometimes increase the risk of evidence disappearing. In another dispute, a precise letter may secure prompt withdrawal of a statement or a settlement. The sequence should follow the actual risks rather than a rigid template used for every case.
Settlement and prevention
A settlement may cover withdrawal of identifiers, restrictions on using information, financial terms and verification that obligations have been fulfilled. It must also account for evidence preservation and legal duties. Demanding deletion of all data without distinction can make later investigation of the dispute more difficult.
After an incident, review employee onboarding and departure procedures, supplier agreements and approval of advertising. Good documentation will not prevent every breach. However, it helps establish what the company protected and which rules each person knew. It also reduces the risk of making unjustified allegations against a lawful competitor.
Unfair competition: frequently asked questions
Can the loss of one customer justify a claim?
The number of customers is not a standalone test. Even one incident can infringe the Act, but its legal elements still need to be established. Conversely, losing many customers does not prove a wrong if they chose a better offer without unlawful conduct.
Does the absence of an NDA mean that no trade secret exists?
Not automatically. What matters is whether Article 11’s conditions are met, including real steps to preserve confidentiality. The absence of an agreement may nevertheless make a particular person’s obligations harder to prove. Equally, signing an NDA does not make every item of information a trade secret.
Must the business first report the case to UOKiK?
No general requirement of this kind applies before a civil claim under the Act. UOKiK, Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, has powers under separate legislation. A private dispute between businesses and public-interest enforcement must be distinguished.
How should a business respond to an allegation?
Preserve its own material and examine the scope of the complaint. Do not hastily delete records or confirm unverified facts. Lawful information sources, independent development and the absence of customer confusion may be relevant. A manifestly unfounded claim can have consequences under Article 22 of the Act.
Can a quick order closing a competitor’s business be guaranteed?
No. The court assesses the legal conditions and proportionality of protection. Interim measures are not a mechanism for removing lawful rivals from the market. A justified request should target specific conduct whose unlawfulness can be sufficiently demonstrated.
Sources and support in a dispute
This guide draws on the Act on Combating Unfair Competition, particularly Articles 3, 5, 10–12, 14, 16, 18–20 and 22, together with the KPC and Civil Code provisions identified above. Statutory links lead to official Sejm documents in Polish. The law applicable on the date of the relevant conduct must also be considered when reviewing a specific dispute.
If unfair competition threatens your business in Poland, describe the problem through our contact form. Initially, identify the type of conduct, when you discovered it and your intended outcome. Do not include trade secrets or a complete customer database in the initial description. A suitable channel for providing documents can be agreed during contact. The Law Firm handles commercial disputes in Poland and helps businesses protect confidential information.
