Currency One Challenges Cinkciarz.pl's Court Victory with Planned Appeal

by Damian Chmiel
  • Two major Polish online currency exchanges have been engaged in a legal battle for ten years.
  • The latest decision supported Cinkciarz.pl, but Currency One disagrees and will appeal.
poland flag
poland

Currency One SA, a Polish online currency exchange provider, has announced plans to appeal a recent court ruling related to an ongoing legal dispute with its competitor, Cinkciarz.pl, part of Conotoxia Holding. The case has been ongoing since October 2013 and involves alleged keyword manipulation leading to increased online ad visibility for Currency One.

Cinkciarz.pl vs. Currency One. Who is Right?

As Finance Magnates reported yesterday (Tuesday), the court decided that Cinkciarz.pl should receive monetary compensation of PLN 2 million (EUR 440,000) from Currency One. However, the verdict is not final and Currency One intends to appeal the court's decision.

The dispute revolves around the use of keywords that would trigger the appearance of Currency One's advertisements in Google searches. The keyword in question is 'cinkciarz': a Polish term also used in Cinkciarz. pl's brand name. 'Cinkciarz' was a person who, during the communist era, engaged in the illegal exchange of PLN for foreign currencies that were not officially in circulation.

In the lawsuit, Cinkciarz.pl argued that the term 'cinkciarz' is no longer in widespread use. They stated that Currency One, by using this term as a keyword to position itself in search results, negatively impacted Cinkciarz.pl's business. The implication here is that Currency One leveraged a term closely associated with its competitor to gain an unfair advantage in search engine visibility.

However, Currency One maintains that 'cinkciarz' is a word that many people still associate with currency exchange and should not be treated as a trademark.

"The possibility of influencing the display of ads in this way remains disputable. It can be said that so far there has not been a final ruling in Poland concerning contextual advertising in the Google Ads system that would give a clear signal to the industry," Przemysław Szmidt, a Senior Lawyer at Filipiak Babicz Legal, commented in a press release sent to Finance Magnates.

The allegations date back to the period between 2011 and 2013, before the merger of Walutomat and InternetowyKantor.pl, the two independent entities now forming Currency One. Back then, the companies had distinct ownership. In 2018, the entities merged to become Currency One under new ownership.

"The change of ownership of the Company took place in 2018, i.e., 5 years after the events that were the subject of the case," Maciej Przygórzewski, the Head of Operations at Currency One, explained.

Currency One emphasized that the current leadership had no involvement with the advertising activities that occurred over a decade ago. The company views the lawsuit as more of a PR move, given the claim's amount far surpasses the financial performance of the company at that time.

"We should remember that the court found that the Cinkciarz.pl trademark was not reputable at the time when the dispute arose – as the plaintiff wanted," Bartosz Jóżwiak, an attorney for Currency One, commented. "On the other hand, the issue of whether such use of elements of a trademark is unfair or creates a risk of confusion for the recipients is the subject of lively debate in many jurisdictions, and the rulings are not clear-cut."

Currency One Will Appeal

Currency One has underscored that its advertising campaign was not intended to imitate Cinkciarz.pl, but to present a comparable offer from an identifiable competitor.

Marcin Rogalski, Head of Business Intelligence at Currency One noted that his company cooperated with legal experts, who were granted access to the analytical systems and data. This enabled a more efficient conclusion of the initial proceedings and allowed for a more precise evaluation of the competitor's claims.

The court awarded approximately PLN 2.2 million related to a group of clients acquired between 2011 and 2013. Currency One disagrees with the primary points of the judgment's rationale and has announced plans to appeal the ruling.

Currency One SA, a Polish online currency exchange provider, has announced plans to appeal a recent court ruling related to an ongoing legal dispute with its competitor, Cinkciarz.pl, part of Conotoxia Holding. The case has been ongoing since October 2013 and involves alleged keyword manipulation leading to increased online ad visibility for Currency One.

Cinkciarz.pl vs. Currency One. Who is Right?

As Finance Magnates reported yesterday (Tuesday), the court decided that Cinkciarz.pl should receive monetary compensation of PLN 2 million (EUR 440,000) from Currency One. However, the verdict is not final and Currency One intends to appeal the court's decision.

The dispute revolves around the use of keywords that would trigger the appearance of Currency One's advertisements in Google searches. The keyword in question is 'cinkciarz': a Polish term also used in Cinkciarz. pl's brand name. 'Cinkciarz' was a person who, during the communist era, engaged in the illegal exchange of PLN for foreign currencies that were not officially in circulation.

In the lawsuit, Cinkciarz.pl argued that the term 'cinkciarz' is no longer in widespread use. They stated that Currency One, by using this term as a keyword to position itself in search results, negatively impacted Cinkciarz.pl's business. The implication here is that Currency One leveraged a term closely associated with its competitor to gain an unfair advantage in search engine visibility.

However, Currency One maintains that 'cinkciarz' is a word that many people still associate with currency exchange and should not be treated as a trademark.

"The possibility of influencing the display of ads in this way remains disputable. It can be said that so far there has not been a final ruling in Poland concerning contextual advertising in the Google Ads system that would give a clear signal to the industry," Przemysław Szmidt, a Senior Lawyer at Filipiak Babicz Legal, commented in a press release sent to Finance Magnates.

The allegations date back to the period between 2011 and 2013, before the merger of Walutomat and InternetowyKantor.pl, the two independent entities now forming Currency One. Back then, the companies had distinct ownership. In 2018, the entities merged to become Currency One under new ownership.

"The change of ownership of the Company took place in 2018, i.e., 5 years after the events that were the subject of the case," Maciej Przygórzewski, the Head of Operations at Currency One, explained.

Currency One emphasized that the current leadership had no involvement with the advertising activities that occurred over a decade ago. The company views the lawsuit as more of a PR move, given the claim's amount far surpasses the financial performance of the company at that time.

"We should remember that the court found that the Cinkciarz.pl trademark was not reputable at the time when the dispute arose – as the plaintiff wanted," Bartosz Jóżwiak, an attorney for Currency One, commented. "On the other hand, the issue of whether such use of elements of a trademark is unfair or creates a risk of confusion for the recipients is the subject of lively debate in many jurisdictions, and the rulings are not clear-cut."

Currency One Will Appeal

Currency One has underscored that its advertising campaign was not intended to imitate Cinkciarz.pl, but to present a comparable offer from an identifiable competitor.

Marcin Rogalski, Head of Business Intelligence at Currency One noted that his company cooperated with legal experts, who were granted access to the analytical systems and data. This enabled a more efficient conclusion of the initial proceedings and allowed for a more precise evaluation of the competitor's claims.

The court awarded approximately PLN 2.2 million related to a group of clients acquired between 2011 and 2013. Currency One disagrees with the primary points of the judgment's rationale and has announced plans to appeal the ruling.

About the Author: Damian Chmiel
Damian Chmiel
  • 1378 Articles
  • 28 Followers
About the Author: Damian Chmiel
Damian's adventure with financial markets began at the Cracow University of Economics, where he obtained his MA in finance and accounting. Starting from the retail trader perspective, he collaborated with brokerage houses and financial portals in Poland as an independent editor and content manager. His adventure with Finance Magnates began in 2016, where he is working as a business intelligence analyst.
  • 1378 Articles
  • 28 Followers

More from the Author

FinTech

!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|} !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}