Initially, the parties cooperated smoothly, but after the licensing agreement expired, the company stopped paying Dariusz Michalczewski for promoting the Tiger beverage.
As a result, the boxer filed a lawsuit with the court to protect his nickname “Tiger” as a personal right, and also demanded that FoodCare pay him 2.4 million PLN. After several years of legal battles, the District Court in Krakow ruled in favor of Dariusz Michalczewski and recognized the nickname as a personal right, especially since it belongs to a well-known person, and the cooperation between the parties took place during the peak of the boxer’s career. Furthermore, the court of first instance stated that the company’s activity of continuing to sell the beverage under the same name and distancing itself from the well-known athlete was contrary to good morals and also violated the principle of “pacta sunt servanda” (agreements must be kept).
Following FoodCare’s appeal, the court of second instance completely reversed the decision and ruled in favor of the company. The court argued that the nickname does not constitute a personal right and does not have a material character, and that the word “Tiger” does not represent a social value, and therefore can be used freely. The court pointed out the difference between a pseudonym and a nickname. It is the pseudonym, in contrast to the nickname, that has its source in the dignity of every human being, which is inalienable, and is also assigned independently by the person concerned. A nickname, on the other hand, is assigned by other people, e.g., by a journalist, as was the case with Dariusz Michalczewski.
As a result, the famous boxer filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, raising, among other things, the argument that the division into pseudonym and nickname is archaic.
In the case, the Supreme Court stated that when assessing a nickname and pseudonym from a legal perspective, one should focus on their connection (as a protected value) to a specific person. Therefore, the protection of personal rights cannot be extended to the protection of any values that are important to a given person. According to the Supreme Court, it is the pseudonym that has the character of a personal right, as it is an element that allows for the independent identification of a specific person, in contrast to a nickname. Consequently, a nickname is an element that complements the first name and surname of a given person and appears alongside the personal data, rather than instead of it. As a result, in this case, one cannot speak of an inseparable connection with a given person. Taking into account the above considerations, as well as the fact that Dariusz Michalczewski used the nickname Tiger alongside his first name and surname, he cannot benefit from the protection afforded to personal rights.
In light of the above, the Supreme Court, in its judgment of October 23, 2020, dismissed the appeal of the famous Tiger Michalczewski.
The above decision means that Dariusz Michalczewski does not have the exclusive right to use the designation Tiger, which in turn may have significant implications for other companies and any ongoing disputes regarding the use of the word Tiger.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
