Polish IP & IT law » industrial designs

Archive for: industrial designs

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 504/10

August 24th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 504/10 held that the scope of creative freedom is determined by the functional features of the object and the previous designs. In case of designs that must meet particular functional requirements, the scope of creative freedom is smaller than in the case of designs, which have more of the aesthetic features. Where the scope of creative freedom is broader, the differences between designs should be more noticeable than in the narrow scope of that freedom. The informed user must have information on the object, that is sufficient to assess the scope for creative freedom and be able to see even relatively small differences, that are important in the case of designs with little creative freedom.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-11748

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Podstawka reklamowa Star base” (in English: advertising stand Star base) Rp-11748.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 599/10

August 2nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 599/10 held that the factual justification of the decision of the Polish Patent Office should contain the facts that the PPO regards as proven, the evidence relied upon and the reasons for which other evidence has been treated as not authentic and without probative force. The legal justification should contain the legal authority for the decision with reference to the relevant law. Only justification prepared in accordance with these requirements allows for a full review of the contested decision. The Court upheld the contested decision and ruled it unenforceable because the PPO found that the design meets the requirement of individual character, but it did not explain which differences in shapings decide on their individual character. The position of PPO as to a small range of creative freedom was also not apparent from the justification.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-12232

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Plafoniera sufitowa” (in English: Ceiling plafoniere/ceiling-mounted chandelier) Rp-12232.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 598/10

August 2nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 598/10 held that the court’s review of a decision issued by the PPO does not include a requirement to make additional findings for a case. The factual justification of the decision should contain the facts that the PPO regards as proven, the evidence relied upon and the reasons for which other evidence has been treated as not authentic and without probative force. The legal justification should contain the legal authority for the decision with reference to the relevant law. Only justification prepared in accordance with these requirements allows for a full review of the contested decision.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-12224

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Ramię ozdobne do opraw oświetleniowych” (in English: Decorative Arm for luminaires) Rp-12224.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Industrial design and trade mark law, case II GSK 481/09

July 14th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of the history described in “Industrial design and trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 710/08“. The Polish company decided to file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court, hoping the Court would clarify the interpretation of article 117(2) of the IPL.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 May 2010, case file II GSK 481/09 ruled that there is no issue of wrong implementation of article 11 of the Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs. The Court noted that even the preamble of Design Directive explicitly states that Member States should remain free to fix the procedural provisions concerning registration, renewal and invalidation of design rights and provisions concerning the effects of such invalidity. Therefore, there is no need to refer a question to the Court of Justice of EU for a preliminary ruling. The SAC did not agree with arguments that the issue of finding that the exploitation of the industrial design infringes third parties’ personal or author’s economic rights shall be decided by civil court and not by the PPO. The question of similarity of the questioned design and 3D trade mark should also be decided by the PPO. The Court did not follow arguments presented by the General Court in its judgment of 12 May 2010 in case T-148/08, Beifa Group Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhaüßer GmbH & Co. KG. However, the SAC did agree with the Polish company that facts of the case were not handled properly by the Voivodeship Administrative Court. Therefore, the SAC annulled the questioned judgments and returned the case to the VAC for reconsideration and ordered the Polish Patent Office to pay the Polish company a reimbursement of costs of the cassation compliant.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 33/10

June 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 33/10 ruled that the illustration of the industrial design shall consist in particular of drawings, photographs or samples of a textile fabric. The description describing the illustration of the industrial design should present the design in a manner clear and detailed enough to enable the design to be reproduced on the basis of the illustration in any form indicated in the application. In particular, the description shall contain the definition of the industrial design and indicate what it is intended for, determine the figures of the illustration or indicate numbers of samples, include a numbered list of the forms of the industrial design where the application contains such forms, and finally designate those features of appearance, which distinguish the filed design from other known designs and enable its identification. Therefore, that abstract and claims are not required in the application for industrial design. However, some applicants continues to file design applications with protection claims included, which is the remnant and a habit, pursuant to old provisions on ornamental designs.

In the assessment of the design application, the Polish Patent Office shall, as indicated by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 August 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1088/08, and according to article 153 of the PBAC, include analysis of the documentation referred to in Article. Paragraph 107. 2 IPL.

Article 107
1. The right in registration of an industrial design shall not subsist in features of a product:
(i) which are solely dictated by its technical function,
(ii) which must necessarily be reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the product to be mechanically connected to, or to interact with, another product.

2. The provision of paragraph (1) shall be without prejudice to the registration of an industrial design serving the purpose of allowing multiple assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system.

The Court held that the abovementioned practice exercised by applicants and the PPO with regard to accepting applications with protection claims and the registration process, does not exempt the PPO from the duty to examine industrial design applications according to article 107(2) of the IPL.

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Wiador” (in English: Bucket) PRZ-1077.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 506/10

May 27th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 27 may 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 506/10 held that due to the fact that the Polish Patent Office did not timely corrected the deficiency of the reasons of its decision and it did not decided and ruled on this issue in its response, although irregularities were indicated in the complaint, the Court had to decide at this stage of proceedings that the contested decision infringes the rules of administrative proceedings in the aspect that could significantly affect the outcome of the case.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-11779

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Zestaw podstawek reklamowych Star Fala” (in English: Set of advertising coasters Star Fala) Rp-11779.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 1038/09

May 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a judgment of 23 February 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 1038/09, held that the Polish Patent Office wrongly ruled that the admission of evidence based on the testimony of a witness will not bring anything new to the case, by stating that these witnesses were not credible evidence that the subject of disclosure in the shop (boards) was questioned industrial design.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-11243

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Tablica informacyjna” (in English: Information table) Rp-11243.

The VAC held that such ruling has the nature of prejudice and is contrary to the provisions of administrative procedure because the PPO made the assessment of usefulness and credibility of evidence, of which it has not get acquainted with.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 34/09

April 28th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 26 February 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 34/09, ruled that there is no doubt that the industrial design must be assessed in such a form in which it will be possible to visually acquaint with it and with all the features of a product.

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Teczka na dokumenty” (in English: Folder for documents) Rp-4223.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-4223

The VAC ruled that the use of folders for documents is also based on their opening and closing in order to place the relevant documents inside, therefore, the discussed “inside” features must also be assessed.

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

See also my posts entitled “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case II GSK 323/09

February 23rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

A company filed a notice of opposition to a final decision of the Polish Patent Office (PPO) on the grant of a right in registration for the industrial design “Zadaszenie drzwi” (in English: door canopy) Rp-9198. The opposition has been filed under the provisions of article 102(1), article 103(1), article 104(1) and (2) and article 106(1) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.

Article 102
1. Any new and having individual character appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, colours, shape, texture or materials of the product and its ornamentation, shall constitute an industrial design.
(…)
Article 103
1. An industrial design shall be considered new if, before the date according to which priority to obtain a right in registration is determined and subject to paragraph (2), no identical design has been made available to the public, i.e. used, exhibited or otherwise disclosed. Designs shall also be deemed to be identical with those made available to the public if their features differ only in immaterial details.
(…)
Article 104
1. An industrial design shall be considered to have individual character, if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available before the date according to which priority is determined.

2. In assessing individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design shall be taken into consideration.
(…)
Article 106
1. Rights in registration shall not be granted for industrial designs whose exploitation would be contrary to public order or morality; exploitation of an industrial design shall not be considered to be contrary to public order merely because it is prohibited by law.

The opposing party claimed the lack of novelty becuse the disputed design was disclosed inter alia during the exchange of correspondence with the owner and the lack of the individual character of a product. The PPO rejected the opposition and ruled that the industrial design is new. While referring to the cooperation between the opposing company and the owner, the PPO noted that the disclosure of a design was only approved between both parties. The PPO concluded that the industrial design in question was not disclosed publicly. In the proceedings before the PPO and the courts no other evidence with regard to public disclosure of the design was submitted.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in a judgment of 19 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1767/08 rejected the complaint against the decision of the PPO. The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 20 January 2010, case file II GSK 323/09, rejected the cassation complaint. The SAC held that any correspondence, not only commercial, bears the characteristics of confidentiality due to the fact that by its nature it is addressed to the designated entity, and refers the specific content associated with a certain confidence on the part of the sender. Its publication requires the consent of both parties. Therefore, it coould not be argued that the disclosure of a new design could take place in the correspondence between the two businesses working together.

The cassation complaint also presented the argument of “exceeding the principle of formality”. The Court found it unjustified based on provisions of articles 255¹ and 256 of the IPL.

Article 255¹
1. Litigation proceedings in the cases referred to in Article 255(1)(i)-(viii) shall be initiated at a written request.

2. A request for initiation of a proceeding shall be subject to payment of a fee.

3. A request shall contain:
(i) identification of the parties and their addresses
(ii) brief presentation of the case
(iii) clear definition of the decision sought
(iv) reference to the legal ground
(v) indication of evidence
(vi) signature of the requesting party and a date

4. The request shall be accompanied by:
(i) a power of attorney, where the request is submitted by the representative
(ii) copies of the request in a number corresponding to the number of the parties to the litigation proceeding
(iii) a receipt for the payment of the fee referred to in paragraph (2).

5. The Patent Office shall check whether the request for initiation of a litigation proceeding satisfies the formal requirements referred to in paragraphs (3) and (4).

6. Where the request fails to satisfy the formal requirements, the Patent Office shall invite the requesting party to remove the defects, under pain of discontinuance of the proceeding, within 30 days.

(…)

Article 256
1. The provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure shall apply accordingly to litigation procedure before the Patent Office in cases not regulated by this Law..

2. To costs of proceedings the provisions applied in civil law proceedings shall apply accordingly.

3. The provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure governing re-examination, at a party’s request, of cases, in which decisions not liable to appeal were taken, shall not apply to decisions on merits taken after hearing.

3¹. The cases referred to in Article 2553(2) may be requested to be re-adjudicated. A time limit for submitting a request shall be, in case of a decision made – two months and in case of an order issued – one month from the date of the decision or the order being served upon the party.

The proceedings before the Polish Patent Office are reduced of principles set out in the of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments, including the principle of formality, or the principle to watch over the interests of the parties by the public administration bodies. Because of the adversarial proceedings, the party has to prove the circumstances from which it derives the legal consequences that are more favorable.

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Zadaszenie drzwi” (in English: door canopy), Rp-9198.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-9198

See also my posts entitled “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design case, VIII SA/Wa 332/09

February 11th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a judgment of 15 December 2009, case file VIII SA/Wa 332/09, ruled that he “informed user” is a person who continues to use a product and therefore has some knowledge about its design. It is not a professional. This may be a very attentive consumer who knows what is he or she looking for and who draws attention to all visible elements of the product. The infromed user who uses cartridges for a roller blind, is certainly not an average user or an average purchaser of such product. While assessing the individual character of a cartridge for a roller blind, the scope of creative freedom should be assesed, taking into account the nature of the product and its utilitarian functions, and then, by establishing the characteristics of an “informed user”, the evaluation of a products and the differences should be performed through such prizm, bearing in mind that the “informed user” is one who knows that there are different types of cartridges and who examine them carefully. This judgment is not yet final. The parties may file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Kaseta do rolet” (in English: cartridge for a roller blind), Rp-8019.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-8019

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case II GSK 772/09

February 4th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw received two different complaints against the same decision of the Polish Patent Office (PPO) on the invalidation of the right in registration. The Court decided on both complaints and issued the resolution of 16 April 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 443/09, the parties in this case were the PPO and a Polish joint-stock company from Bydgoszcz (legal entity), and the resolution of 23 June 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 715/09, the parties in this case were Jan Romanik (natural person) and the PPO. The VAC rejected the complaint in the second case and hold that there exist the identity between case VI SA/Wa 443/09 and VI SA/Wa 715/09.

Jan Romanik brough a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC in a decision of 9 December 2009, case file II GSK 772/09, ruled that the violation of law made by the VAC was based on a wrong assumption that the resolution case file VI SA/Wa 443/09 was related (the so-called “case sameness”) to VI SA/Wa 715/09, namely, because the case fell within the action between the same parties, which was the subject of the same decision of the Polish Patent Office.

Even if the natural person was the sole shareholder in the joint-stock company, both entities cannot be identified as one, because these are participants of legal transactions that are independent from each other and each of them acquire the rights and duties on its own behalf.

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Łopata” (in English: shovel) Rp-9834.
Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-9834

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case II GSK 238/09

January 27th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 16 December 2009, case file II GSK 238/09, ruled that the essential features of the industrial design, are these characteristics that determine the overall impression that the design produces on the informed user. These are features of the shape/appearance which serve as a basis for identifying, distinguishing the design from other, already known designs. The forms of the industrial design differ (otherwise there would be no forms). But these differences include irrelevant features, i.e. those which do not affect the overall impression. The essential features, that decide on the overall impression are common for all forms of an industrial design. Forms of industrial design that are put in one application which are also having the essential features common, differ from each other only by features that are irrelevant. These forms are identical as defined in article 103(1) – second sentence – of the IPL.

Designs shall also be deemed to be identical with those made available to the public if their features differ only in immaterial details.

This means that if some of the forms of the industrial design had already been made public, and lost its novelty, other forms, differing from them only by insignificant details, do not have the novelty characteristic, because they are considered by the law as identical, which means, they are devoid of the individual characteristic.

This judgment was issued on the basis of the cassation complaint brought from the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, of 11 December 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1827/08. The judgment of the VAC was reported in my post entitled “Industrial design case VI SA/Wa 1827/08“.

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Zadaszenie drzwi” (in English: door canopy), Rp-9201.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-9201

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 703/09

January 22nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 19 November 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 703/09 ruled that the entitled person to file a request for invalidation of a right in registration of an industrial design may be an owner of the industrial design registered with an earlier priority, if the existence of this deisgn is an obstacle to the novelty or individual character of the later design. The entitled person to file a request for invalidation may also be an entrepreneur that produces a product with a solution that is covered by the wrongly granted right in registration and to whom this wrongly granted right interferes with the freedom of business establishment and operation.

This case concerned the industrial design “Stelaż fotela” (in English: seat frame), Rp-8808.

Wzór Przemysłowy 8808

This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design case VI SA/Wa 189/09

January 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 9 October 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 189/09 ruled that according to article 103 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.

1. An industrial design shall be considered new if, before the date according to which priority to obtain a right in registration is determined and subject to paragraph (2), no identical design has been made available to the public, i.e. used, exhibited or otherwise disclosed. Designs shall also be deemed to be identical with those made available to the public if their features differ only in immaterial details.

2. The designs shall not be deemed to have been made available to the public within the meaning of paragraph (1), if it could not have become known to the circles specialised in the sector, to which the design belongs.

it is not about the mere fact of the disclosure of the design, but whether it was possible for an unlimited number of persons from the circles specialised in the sector, to which the design belongs, to actually get acquainted with the given design.

This case concerned the industrial design “Tkanina meblowa” (in English: furniture fabric), Rp-12269.

Wzór Przemysłowy 12269

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Polish case law on industrial designs

January 12th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Below, you will find a list of judgments on industrial designs that were decided upon in administrative proceedings. Finding cases that are decided upon in civil proceedings is more problematic becasue they are rarely available to general public. You can find a more detailed discussion on each judgment under the link provided with the case file. All judgments are given in chronological order.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw of 16 June 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 134/10. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 27 May 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 506/10. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 12 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 599/10.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 12 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 598/10.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 504/10.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 26 February 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 34/09. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 23 February 2010, case file VI SA/Wa 1038/09. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 January 2010, case file II GSK 323/09.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 December 2009, case file II GSK 238/09. This judgment was issued on the basis of the cassation complaint brought from the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, of 11 December 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1827/08.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 15 December 2009, case file VIII SA/Wa 332/09. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

- The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 9 December 2009, case file II GSK 772/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 19 November 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 703/09. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 13 November 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 1376/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 9 October 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 189/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 29 September 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 211/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 19 August 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 664/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 10 June 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 498/09

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 21 July 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 518/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 8 June 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 536/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 2 June 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 502/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 4 April 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 109/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 4 February 2009, case file VIII SA/Wa 332/08.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 January 2009, case file II GSK 612/08.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 December 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1827/08. The cassation compliant bought before the Supreme Administrative Court was rejected in a decision of 16 December 2009, case file II GSK 238/09.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court of 21 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 710/08.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 4 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1053/08.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 August 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1088/08.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 10 June 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 543/08.

- The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 4 November 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1054/08.

- The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 March 2007, case file II GSK 277/06, published in the electronic database LEX, under the no 321283.

- The judgment of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 23 October 2007, case file II CKS 302/07.

- The judgement of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 October 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 1215/07.

See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs“.