Author: Informatyk A. Przybysz

The Italian shipbuilding group (with strong Chinese capital involvement) has been at the center of an international scandal for several months. Italian prosecutors are investigating allegations of industrial espionage after alleged wiretapping devices were found in the office of one of the Chinese directors of the group. 

This is one example of how brutal the competition for competitive edges is in the yacht industry, which is worth tens of billions of dollars. Intellectual property is also a tangible asset here. When a project can generate millions of euros in profit, the temptation to copy the competition’s solutions grows. 

In this publication, we will discuss the most common types of infringements and ways to protect against them. 

Design that costs 

Copying external designs is a major issue in the yacht industry. Modern yachts are often works of art. The hull design has not only functional but also aesthetic importance. However, the boundary between inspiration and plagiarism is often difficult to define. 

Design disputes typically concern distinctive elements – the hull line, the railing line, the shape of windows, the proportions of the superstructure, or the bow profile. Shipyards invest hundreds of thousands of euros in design work, only to watch as competitors quickly introduce “similar” models to the market. Motor yacht models in the 15-30 meter range are particularly vulnerable to copying – this is a segment where design plays a crucial role in sales success. Italian shipyards have been waging a more or less open war for years about whose design was “first”. 

Trademark wars 

The second most common type in infringement is unauthorized use of trademarks. In the yacht industry, branding is of enormous importance. Buying a yacht is often a prestige decision, where the manufacturer’s name is just as important as the quality of the product. Problems arise especially in Asian markets, where local manufacturers treat European trademarks “freely”. This concerns not only shipyard names but also specific yacht model designations and characteristic logos placed on the hull. 

Shipyards must also protect themselves from counterfeit spare parts. Equipment sold under premium brands may not necessarily be genuine. Importantly, this is not just a financial issue, but also a safety threat! 

Theft of know-how 

Another problem is the unlawful use of technical solutions and know-how. Modern yachts are technologically advanced floating units made from innovative composite materials, equipped with advanced navigation systems, or featuring cutting-edge multimedia solutions.  

Particularly vulnerable are: 

• innovative hull construction solutions,
• smart yacht management systems,
• propulsion system solutions,
• materials and composite production technologies. 

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the industry is relatively small – specialists often “move” between competing shipyards, taking knowledge about production processes and technical solutions with them and introducing them to competitors. 

Legal and financial consequences 

Intellectual property violations in the yacht industry can cost a fortune. Courts can award high damages for losses caused by copying designs or counterfeiting brands. 

Affected shipyards may demand: 

• cease and desist from production and sales of infringing products,
• compensation for lost profits,
• compensation for damage to their reputation. 

In particularly egregious cases, when there is systematic copying of competitor’s product portfolio, damages can amount to millions of euros. 

How to protect yourself 

Effective protection of intellectual property in the yacht industry requires a comprehensive strategy. Actions that can be taken as part of this strategy include: 

Registration of protective rights – industrial designs, trademarks, and patents should be registered not only in Europe but also in Asian and American markets. The cost of global registration is a fraction of potential losses. 

Market monitoring – regularly tracking the activities of competitors and new products being introduced to the market allows for quick detection of potential infringements. The faster we react, the more effective the legal action will be. 

Securing know-how – confidentiality clauses in employee contracts, restricting access to sensitive information, and properly securing technical documentation are essential to protecting against know-how theft. 

Cooperation with customs authorities – registering trademarks with customs authorities facilitates the detection and seizure of counterfeit products at borders. 

The future of IP protection in yachting 

The yachting industry is currently experiencing innovations. Electric drives, smart management systems, next-generation composite materials – all of this will require even more effective protection of intellectual property. 

Shipyards that invest in a comprehensive IP protection strategy today will have a competitive advantage in the coming years. The costs of such a strategy are usually a fraction of the marketing budget, but the benefits can be crucial for survival in a competitive market. 

In a world where one successful design can bring enormous profits, intellectual property protection is no longer optional – it is a condition of success. 

If this topic is of interest to you, we invite you to read our other publications on intellectual property: 

• intellectual property protection 
• objections before the patent office – how to defend your yacht from plagiarism
• yacht keel and copyright – an unusual pair

In maritime transport, the bill of lading and the sea waybill are the most important documents that confirm the conclusion of the goods transport contract and their takeover by the carrier. Although they serve similar functions, they differ significantly, which is important in everyday transport management. The choice of the appropriate document affects transport processes, insurance, and the future of digitization in the industry. Let’s check the details. 

Basic differences between the bill of lading and sea waybill 

The first significant difference to note is the issue of the transferability of both documents. The bill of lading is a transferable document, meaning that the holder of the bill of lading can sell or transfer the right to the goods to another party during transport. The sea waybill does not grant such a right. 

The bill of lading also serves as a title to the cargo – the owner has the right to receive the goods and can also use it to secure a debt, such as a form of credit collateral. In the case of the sea waybill, such an option does not exist. 

Practical consequences of choosing the document 

Depending on the nature of the transport, the choice between the bill of lading and the sea waybill can be very important. The waybill is particularly beneficial when the consignor and consignee have a long-term and trusted business relationship. In such situations, where neither party expects a change in the ownership of the goods during transport, this document simplifies the process of releasing the goods at the destination port. The consignee can receive the goods based on the data in the document, without the need to present the original SWB. 

On the other hand, the bill of lading is more suitable when there is a need to transfer ownership of the goods during transport, for example, when the goods are used in trade or need to be secured on behalf of a bank or another entity. In such cases, the bill of lading serves as a negotiable instrument, providing greater flexibility in managing the transport. 

Practical use of the sea waybill 

As mentioned, the sea waybill is particularly applicable in relationships where the consignor and consignee trust each other and prefer a simplified transport procedure. An example could be transactions between companies that regularly cooperate and do not anticipate any changes in the ownership of the goods during transport. In such a case, the SWB allows for the quick and efficient release of the goods, without the need to wait for the original documents to be sent. 

The sea waybill is also advantageous when the consignee has paid the freight in advance. Since there is no need to present the original document, the entire transport process becomes more flexible and less burdened with formalities. 

Impact of transport documents on cargo insurance 

The choice between the bill of lading and the sea waybill also affects insurance procedures. The bill of lading, being the title to the goods, is necessary when the goods are insured and when it is necessary to transfer the rights to the cargo during transport. In this case, the owner of the bill of lading can claim compensation in the event of damage or loss of goods, having full rights to the claim. 

In the case of the sea waybill, the consignee does not have the title to the cargo, so they cannot sell it or secure it under credit. Therefore, insurance claims may be more complicated, especially when it comes to transferring ownership rights to the goods. 

The future of transport documents – digitization 

The increasing digitization of maritime transport is leading to the potential integration of documents such as the bill of lading and sea waybill with blockchain technology, which will significantly enhance the security of their circulation. Such solutions will allow for faster and safer document transfers, eliminating the risk of their loss, and making supply chain management easier. 

Summary 

The choice between the bill of lading and the sea waybill depends on the nature of the transport and the needs related to transferring ownership rights to the goods. The bill of lading is more appropriate in the transport of goods where the transfer of ownership during transport is required. Meanwhile, the sea waybill works best when the transport is based on trust between the consignor and the consignee and there is no need to transfer ownership rights to the cargo. Understanding these differences allows for selecting the most suitable solution, minimizing risks and simplifying the entire logistical process. 

In April, we wrote about the development of the “trade war” between the EU and the US and its impact on the yachting industry. Since then, the situation has changed, and from a dynamic escalation of tensions, we are moving toward an optimistic plan for an agreement. A few days ago, the European Commission published a draft of changes that are expected to be introduced soon. These are the assumptions that EU and US leaders intend to implement. 

New tariff rate 

According to previous statements by Donald Trump, tariffs on goods from the EU, such as pharmaceuticals, cars, and electronics, reached 25%, excluding the rates functioning under WTO rules (which, in practice, sometimes set rates at 27.5%). According to the agreement, tariffs on most goods will be reduced to 15%. This rate is to be complete (i.e., it will include the WTO rate) and will apply to most goods imported to the US from the EU. For now, there is no information on whether the rate will also apply to recreational vessels, such as yachts and their parts. 

Scope of the agreement 

The agreement does not clarify all issues. It is not known whether the regulations will cover all areas of the industry, or if some will be excluded. In this regard, it is unclear what impact this will have on the yacht industry and the maritime sector. As a result of the talks, the EU has withdrawn from imposing 30% retaliatory tariffs on recreational boats from the US, which may impact the competitiveness of boat suppliers and potentially increase exports. 

Tariffs on steel and aluminum 

The joint statement did not address tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. The content of these metals in products is now subject to a 50% tariff, and the US Department of Commerce has added further goods made from these raw materials to the tariff list. This may affect the prices of parts imported from the US, including products crucial to the yacht industry. Already included in the list are items such as outboard motors, as well as hydraulic or electrical accessories. In this case, we can only hope that as a result of further talks, goods imported from the EU will be excluded from such tariffs. 

The near future 

Although the provisions in the agreement are not yet in effect, they offer hope for an improvement in relations between the EU and the US, and thus for a better situation for entrepreneurs (including those in the yacht industry) on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. If the next talks proceed in a similar tone, we can expect favorable solutions in terms of trade and tariff rates. 

Shipwrecks have long fascinated maritime enthusiasts and divers alike. For some, they are a valuable cultural heritage, while for others, they are attractive tourist destinations or potential sources of financial gain. 

However, behind every wreck lies a complex legal question: who holds rights to the wreck, what obligations arise from discovering it, and what risks may be associated with its exploration? 

What does the law say 

Regulations regarding shipwrecks can be found in several legal acts, both at the international and domestic levels. Key regulations include: 

• UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001)

This convention establishes rules for the protection of shipwrecks that are at least 100 years old. The main goal is to prevent looting of wrecks and protect their historical value. Poland ratified this convention, meaning it applies to wrecks found in Polish territorial waters. 

• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 

UNCLOS governs the rights to shipwrecks in the high seas and in exclusive economic zones. In the case of wrecks of significant historical or cultural value, a state may claim rights to protect or conserve these objects. 

• Polish national regulations 

Shipwrecks found in Polish waters are also subject to the Act on the Protection and the Care of Monuments and Maritime Law. A wreck recognized as a monument cannot be removed without the approval of the relevant heritage protection authorities. 

Who has the right to the wreck 

The right to a wreck depends on several factors: 

• the age of the wreck and its status as a monument – wrecks older than 100 years are often treated as cultural heritage and are protected, regardless of their owner; 

• the location of the wreck – if the wreck is located in territorial waters, it is subject to the laws of that state. In international waters, international regulations apply; 

• ownership rights – if the ship’s owner still exists (e.g., the shipowner or their heirs), they may claim rights to the wreck. 

What are the obligations arising from wreck exploration 

Individuals or companies involved in wreck exploration must remember several key obligations: 

• reporting the discovery – in Poland, the discovery of a shipwreck must be reported to the appropriate maritime office. Failing to report the discovery can lead to legal liability, including administrative penalties; 

• obtaining permits – exploring and recovering a wreck requires obtaining the necessary permits, particularly if the wreck is considered a monument. Failure to obtain permits can result in the confiscation of recovered items and financial penalties; 

• environmental protection – wreck exploration can involve the risk of water contamination (e.g., fuel leakage). Explorers are required to comply with environmental protection regulations. 

What are the legal and practical risks 

Wreck exploration carries risks such as: 

• ownership disputes – in the case of a dispute over the rights to the wreck, the matter may be taken to court or international arbitration; 

• accusations of looting – unlawful actions, such as removing objects from wrecks without permission, can lead to accusations of cultural heritage theft; 

• liability for environmental damage – pollution of the marine environment during exploration can result in hefty fines. 

Conclusion 

Shipwrecks are not only fascinating objects of research and tourism but also sources of complex legal challenges. Understanding and complying with relevant regulations helps avoid conflicts and legal risks. If you plan to explore wrecks or face legal challenges related to them, it is worth consulting a law firm specializing in maritime law. 

Why leasing a large yacht is a different league 

Superyachts always evoke strong emotions. They come with larger sums of money, greater luxury, but also more formalities and more responsibility. 

But what exactly is a superyacht? 

As lawyers, we have a weakness for definitions, but the term is not defined in Polish regulations. Conventionally, superyachts are considered to be vessels longer than 24 meters (80 feet). Typically, this category ends at 60 meters (197 feet), with anything larger considered a megayacht or simply a ship. 

Although this article is applicable to yachts exceeding these limits, leasing a megayacht is a rarity. At least in the Polish market. 

In Poland, the distinction between luxurious, large yachts and superyachts is reflected primarily in registration regulations. 

There are two registration systems in place: 

• Reja24,
• ship registry. 

The rule is that a yacht with a Polish nationality and a hull length exceeding 24 meters must be registered in the ship registry. 

Yachts with hull lengths up to 24 meters, on the other hand, are subject to registration in the simplified Reja24 registry. 

The transfer of ownership of a superyacht 

So, what happens with a superyacht? A superyacht, i.e., a vessel with a hull longer than 24 meters that is to sail under the Polish flag, must be entered into the ship registry. This, in turn, comes with additional formal requirements concerning the form of the sale of such a yacht. 

If the yacht belongs to a Polish citizen residing in Poland or a Polish company, the contract for the transfer of ownership must be made in writing with notarized signatures. 

This is very important when it comes to the form of leasing agreement, as we’ll see shortly. 

How leasing a superyacht works 

In practice, there are two basic types of leasing: financial and operational. The differences between them are significant particularly in terms of tax issues. However, from our perspective, what matters is that each of these types has different buyout terms. 

Operational leasing is very similar to long-term rental. The main assumption of operational leasing is the use of the yacht rather than its buyout at the end of the lease. A buyout is usually possible, but it is not the goal of the agreement. 

In financial leasing, the buyout is the default. Often, leasing contracts are structured in such a way that the sale of the leased item (in our case, the superyacht) happens automatically once certain conditions are met. The parties do not plan to enter into any additional agreements. An invoice is issued, and the matter ends there. But this is where the trap lies. 

How does the buyout agreement for a superyacht look 

To understand the agreement that concludes the lease, based on which you buy the superyacht, you should distinguish between two legal concepts: 

• a binding contract,
• a contract transferring ownership under a condition. 

A binding contract stipulates that after the lease ends, each party has additional obligations. These obligations include entering into a further contract (the buyout contract), and sometimes making additional statements within the timeframes defined by the contract. 

On the other hand, a contract transferring ownership under condition assumes automatism. The obligation to transfer ownership and the terms of sale (including price) are already defined by the leasing agreement itself and possibly its annexes. Once the lease ends, the lessee simply receives an invoice documenting the purchase, and that’s all. 

Which of these options is included in the leasing contract will determine what formal requirements need to be met by either the leasing agreement or the buyout agreement. 

The “ownership transfer by invoice” trap 

And here comes the question – what exactly is a VAT invoice? 

Can I transfer ownership based on it? And ownership of a superyacht, at that? 

A VAT invoice is simply an accounting document. It confirms the conclusion or execution of a contract, but it is not a contract itself. The invoice is issued by only one party to the contract, while a contract requires at least two parties. 

Since the VAT invoice is not signed by both parties and only confirms the sale, ownership will definitely not transfer based on it. The invoice only confirms the transfer of ownership, which comes from the leasing agreement or another sales contract. 

But for a superyacht, the transfer of ownership requires a written contract with notarized signatures. 

Thus, both parties must sign such a contract at the presence of a notary. Otherwise, the transfer of ownership will simply be invalid. 

What the Supreme Court says about this 

In 2005, the Polish Supreme Court dealt with the form of contracts transferring ownership of ships registered in the registry (IV CK 108/05). While it ruled under the outdated Maritime Code of 1961, the provision it relied on in the new law remains the same. 

The Supreme Court stated that, in practice, two viewpoints can be found: 

1. a contract obligating the parties to conclude another contract (a preliminary agreement) must be made in a special form (in our case, with signatures certified by a notary), and 
2. a binding contract does not need to be made in a special form – only the contract transferring ownership requires such a form. 

Therefore, the Supreme Court, in my opinion quite rightly, concluded that the written form with notarized signatures applies only to those contracts that actually result in the transfer of ownership. 

This requirement does not apply to contracts that merely oblige the parties or allow them to transfer ownership of the yacht. 

And how does this affect leasing agreements? Well, it is very significant. 

If the leasing agreement states that after the lease term, the parties will enter into a buyout agreement, then a regular written form is sufficient for that leasing agreement. 

However, if there is an automatic buyout that does not require any additional agreement, the leasing agreement must be in writing with notarized signatures. 

How to safely structure a buyout in a large yacht lease 

In practice, determining what form the contract should take is not as simple as it may seem. A helpful clue may be determining whether the parties will enter into any additional agreements beyond the leasing contract. 

Under Polish law, when assessing the significance of the contract, the wording is not the most important. What matters much more is what the parties intended to achieve – what their common purpose was. 

So, if the parties intended to handle all formalities under one agreement and simply issue an invoice after paying the price, it must be regarded as a conditional sales contract. This means that such a superyacht leasing agreement requires a special form. On the other hand, if the parties expect that the end of the lease grants them the right to buy the yacht but will enter into another agreement, then the second agreement will need to have a special form. 

Conclusion 

The sale of a superyacht requires particular attention. Mistakes often occur at the stage of poorly drafted leasing agreements. Correcting these mistakes may not be easy and may require complex legal solutions that could have been avoided with a careful analysis of the leasing contract provisions. 

And the consequences? Well… the most serious one could be the invalidity of the yacht’s transfer agreements by the lessee and the inability to deregister the yacht from the registry. Therefore, it is definitely worth preventing these issues in advance.

Offshore projects, due to their unique risks, require special protective mechanisms and clear settlement rules. Well-crafted provisions in these areas can make the difference between success and costly delays or legal issues. 

Therefore, in the second part of the article dedicated to construction contracts in offshore projects, we focus on the following aspects: 

• safeguarding the interests of the parties,
• the method of determining remuneration,
• procedural rules in the event of force majeure.

Safeguards, payment and force majeure 

When signing a contract for an offshore construction project, both the investor and the contractor must think about securing the completion of the work, setting precise payment conditions, and preparing for unforeseen situations. After all, every project at sea is not only a business venture but also an art of risk management. 

Securing the investor’s interests – the “anchor” of stability 

Complex and costly offshore projects require strong safeguards that protect the investor in the event of the contractor failing to fulfill their obligations. The contract may provide for various forms of security, with the most common being a bank guarantee. This mechanism acts like an “anchor” – allowing the investor to cover the costs of potential repairs or delays without the need to allocate additional funds. 

Payments – staged remuneration and transparency 

Payment is not just a reward for completed work, but also a way to continuously monitor the progress. Staged remuneration works particularly well in offshore projects, where each phase carries significant costs and risks. The contract should stipulate payments upon the completion of each stage, and they should be contingent upon the fulfilment of specific conditions, such as providing progress reports. 

Force majeure – winds, waves, and other surprises 

The situation at sea changes rapidly – the progress of work can be influenced, for example, by weather conditions or other unforeseen events. This is why it is important to include a force majeure clause in the contract. This safeguard allows for the suspension of work in exceptional circumstances, such as storms or environmental hazards. With such a clause, neither party will be burdened with additional costs for situations beyond their control. 

Conclusion 

A construction contract in the offshore industry is more than just a standard agreement. It is an action plan, a set of safeguards, and a compass that guides both parties through the complexities of maritime project execution. Careful attention to every element of the contract can determine whether the investment succeeds and help avoid unnecessary legal complications. 

Chartering a yacht is becoming an increasingly popular way to spend a vacation. It provides a sense of freedom, the opportunity to discover new places, and a connection with nature, usually without crowds, hotel queues, and rigid schedules. A few clicks are all it takes to find the perfect yacht, select a date, and set off on the voyage of a lifetime. But before stepping onto the deck, it’s worth taking a closer look at what you’re signing. 

A charter agreement is not just a document to tick off “as a formality”. It’s a document that can have legal, financial, and organizational consequences. While there are good, proven contract templates used by reputable charter companies and brokers, in practice – especially in the local market – many contracts are hurriedly created or copied from unreliable sources. 

As a result, charterers often don’t know exactly what they’re paying for, what happens if something breaks, or what to do if the weather ruins their plans. This is a sure path to misunderstandings, unpleasant surprises… and ruined vacations. 

What exactly are you buying 

The most common issue is a lack of clarity about what the price covers. Sometimes, charges for final cleaning, fuel, port fees, or even bedding must be paid separately, even though charterers assumed everything was “included”. When a detailed breakdown is missing, unexpected additional charges can add up to several hundred euros. 

In such a situation, it’s important to check whether the contract you’re signing truly reflects what you’ve agreed upon with the owner. If you’re unsure about what’s included in the service you’re purchasing, ask and have it specified in the contract. 

Deposit – refundable or not 

Another issue is the deposit. It’s not uncommon for the contract to lack clarity on who will settle the deposit and when, what “damage” or “undamaged return” means, and to what extent the owner can withhold part of it. As a result, even small scratches on the hull or a missing anchor can lead to a loss of several thousand złoty (PLN). 

A contract will never cover 100% of possible situations. However, you can reduce your uncertainty by adding a simple clause stating that the deposit will only be forfeited for documented and justified costs of repair. You can also specify that ordinary wear and tear (e.g., small scratches requiring no action) does not result in the loss of the deposit. 

What to do if something breaks 

Another frequent problem is the lack of information on what to do in case of a breakdown or issues with the yacht. Air conditioning not working? Toilet broken? No radio? Poor lighting? If the contract is silent, you can’t expect a price reduction or any support during the trip. 

Of course, you agree to a working yacht, but what if any compensation can only be claimed after the vacation ends? It’s much better to plan for potential issues upfront. Don’t list every possible problem, but add a clause that if the yacht doesn’t meet the agreed-upon standards (i.e., what you discussed), you can demand a price reduction. Additionally, if the yacht does not meet safety requirements, the owner must provide a yacht of the same or higher standard or refund your money and repair the damage. 

Can you cancel the charter 

The cancellation of a charter is also an important issue. Contracts often don’t account for situations where the charterer – due to valid reasons – has to cancel the trip. A lack of flexibility in such cases can result in the loss of the entire deposit, even with significant advance notice. Be sure to define by when you can cancel and what happens to the deposit. 

Who is responsible for third-party damages 

It’s also worth paying attention to civil liability – who is responsible for damages caused to third parties. Sometimes, charterers are held responsible without realizing that the yacht lacks proper third-party liability insurance (OC) or hull insurance (casco). While this may seem like a minor detail, in case of an accident in the harbour or a collision, it can lead to very high costs. 

📌 We’ll discuss insurance issues (OC, casco, insurance deposits) in more detail in a separate article. 

Hidden costs and “minor” fees 

It’s also concerning when additional fees appear only after signing the contract—e.g., VAT, cleaning, port services. The final price can increase by 20–30% compared to what was initially agreed upon via email or phone. 

Make sure the contract clearly specifies—either directly or by referring to an attached price list—what you need to pay and for what. This is something you must know before signing. 

The contract only favours the owner 

Sometimes the contract contains very one-sided provisions – for example, the owner can change the yacht or cancel the charter without penalty, while the charterer faces harsh penalties for any changes. Such imbalances are a red flag. 

Without a protocol, you’re in trouble 

Finally, too often, the yacht’s technical condition is not documented at the time of pickup. The lack of photographic documentation, a protocol, or an equipment list will work against the charterer if the owner later claims “new” damage. 

A protocol ensures the safety of both parties, it is in everyone interest to sign it. For extra protection, always take detailed photos of the yacht on the day of pickup and return. 

This is not discouragement – just a warning 

Does all this mean that chartering a yacht isn’t worth it? Quite the opposite. It’s one of the best ways to spend a vacation – provided you know what you’re getting into. 

If you charter a yacht in the Mediterranean, there’s a good chance the owner or broker will use standard templates (e.g., MYBA Charter Agreement). However, even then, you’re still required to read the contract. Remember, ignorance of the law, including contractual law, is no excuse. 

Use the checklist before signing your charter agreement 

And finally, check our checklist. It will definitely come in handy! 

• Do you know exactly what the price covers (and what is charged extra)?
• Do you have a description of the yacht pickup and return procedure and the terms for the return of the deposit?
• Does the contract include contact details for someone responsible for breakdowns or complaints?
• Do you know what happens if you cancel the charter?
• Is the yacht covered by valid third-party liability and hull insurance?
• Do you need additional insurance – e.g., skipper’s liability?
• Is the contract “symmetrical” – do both sides have equal rights and obligations?
• Will there be a protocol and technical documentation of the yacht’s condition at pickup?