Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: novelty of an industrial design

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 736/10

January 19th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 October 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 736/10 ruled that the protection of unregistered Community design that results from the Community regulations does not allow for its extension through the registration of that design. Moreover, the protection of an unregistered Community design starts from the date of its first public disclosure.

Rp-12166

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Urządzenie treningowo-sportowe” (in English: Sports-based training device), Rp-12166. The judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 505/10

November 18th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 23 June 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 505/10 held that as the informed user should be considered a person who orders from the manufacturer a set of advertising pads to promote his or her own business and to distribute such pads to places of their use. This is undoubtedly a model of an informed user, and so a hypothetical user who physically does non-exist, who uses the product continuously, so it is not the average consumer neither professional. From his or her point of view, the Polish Patent Office shall assess the overall impression on users of a given design and opposed designs. Nevertheless, it is the informed user who compares industrial designs. The scope of creative freedom in developing the design, is determined by the functional characteristics of the object and the earlier designs.

Rp-11754

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Podstawka reklamowa świecąca Star light” (in English: flashing advertising pad Star light), Rp-11754. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 2026/09

September 22nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 19 May 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 2026/09 held that for the purposes of assessing the probative value of the document, the reliability and accuracy of the information contained therein should be first examined. In this regard, in particular, the PPO should take into account the origin of the document, the circumstances of its preparation, its recipient, and then ask a question whether, given its content, it seems sensible and reliable.

Rp-8329

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Panel perforowany” (in English: perforated panel), Rp-8329. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design case, VI SA/Wa 1727/09

September 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story described in “Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 1215/07“. The Polish Patent Office invalidated the right in registration based on the guidelines outlined in the mentioned judgements. The Polish company Gerlach S.A. filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 December 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1727/09 ruled that the PPO correctly examined all evidences and dissmissed the case. The Court held that in accordance with the views of Polish legal doctrine and the established case law, the informed user is one who knows the scope of creative freedom and the state of design.

Rp-6048

This case concerned the industrial design “Rękojeść sztućców” (in English: handle for cutlery), Rp-6048. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on 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 pad Star base) Rp-11748. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

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

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“. Rosinski Andrzej Rosinski Michal Rosinska Joanna Zaklad Produkcji Opakowan Rosinski i S-ka, Sp. J. decided to file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court, hoping that the Court would clarify the interpretation of Article 117(2) of the Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), 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 subsequent amendments.

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 the provisions 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.

The Court noted also that if the trade mark that was used as a basis of the application for invalidation of the industrial design, is a sign that was registered with an earlier priority in Germany, which is not identical with the Community design that was questioned in the aforementioned application, is similar to this design, the law of the Member State (in this case § 14 section 2 pt 2 of Markengesetz, similar to Article 296 of the IPL) affords Unilever, the proprietor of the mentioned trade mark, the right to prohibit use of this sign in a later design only if because of the similarity of the design to the said trade mark and identical or similarity of the goods or services, which relate to the trade mark and the later design, there is a likelihood of confusion.

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 should, as indicated by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 August 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1088/08, and according to the provisions of Article 153 of the PBAC, include analysis of the documentation referred to in Article 107(2) of the 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.

Rp-1077

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Wiadro” (in English: Bucket) Rp-1077. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 1038/09

May 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its 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. 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.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-11243

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Tablica informacyjna” (in English: Information table) Rp-11243. The judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 34/09

April 28th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its 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. The Court 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 examined.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-4223

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Teczka na dokumenty” (in English: Folder for documents) Rp-4223. This judgment is not yet final. A cassation complaint may be filed to the Supreme Administrative Court. See also “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 Polish 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. 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), 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 subsequent 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 stated 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 its judgment of 19 November 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1767/08 dismissed 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 dismissed 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 ruled it unfounded based on provisions of Articles 255 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.

Because of the adversarial nature of proceedings before the PPO, the party has to prove the circumstances from which it derives the legal consequences that are more favorable. 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, published in 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.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-9198

This case concerned the industrial design “Zadaszenie drzwi” (in English: door canopy) Rp-9198. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 703/09

January 22nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

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

Wzór Przemysłowy 8808

This case concerned the industrial design “Stelaż fotela” (in English: seat frame), Rp-8808. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 1376/09

November 28th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 November 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1376/09 ruled that the objections with regard to the lack of novelty and individual character of the industrial design may be raised only when we are dealing with the industrial design as defined in the provisions of Article 102 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), 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 subsequent amendments.

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.
2. Any industrial or handicraft item, including, in particular, packaging, get-up, graphic symbols and typographic typefaces, but excluding computer programs, shall be considered to be a product.
3. The following shall also be considered to be a product:
(i) a product which is composed of multiple components, which can be replaced permitting disassembly and reassembly of the product (complex product),
(ii) a component part, if, once incorporated into the complex product, it remains visible during normal use of the latter, the use being understood as excluding maintenance, servicing or repair work.
(iii) a component part, if it may, by itself, be subject of commercialisation.
4. In case of a design applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product within the meaning of paragraph (3)(i), assessment of novelty and individual character shall only be made in consideration of its visible features.

Wzór Przemysłowy 12053

This case concerned the industrial design “Przeciwpożarowa klapa odcinająca” (in English: fire severing flapper), Rp-12053. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 211/09

September 29th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 September 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 211/09 held that the prerequisite for registration as an industrial design is the recognition that there is the “appearance of the whole or a part of a product”, and therefore the subject of the application is visible on the outside. This assumption was based on the provisions of Article 102(1) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), 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 subsequent amendments.

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

The conditions of novelty and individual character should be examined later. An invisible item, hidden from the visual perception of the buyer, or the “end user” (consumer) does not constitute an industrial design. It does not have a form of “a product” which meas its appearance. It’s not about the appearance of the component of a product which is visible after separated from the whole, but it is about the possibility to get visually acquainted with it when you buy it, and especially – during the so-called normal use.

Wzór Przemysłowy 9737

This case concerned the industrial design “Ogranicznik wylewu” (in English: overflow limiter), Rp-9737. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 746/09

August 23rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Patent Office registered the design of a bottle in the form of a contour map of Poland Rp-11003, applied for by Przedsiębiorstwo Wielobranżowe Euro-Kamil Polska sp. z o. o. from Wrocław.

Rp-11003

Jacek Andruszkiewicz from Warszawa filed a request for invalidation of this design. Mr Andruszkiewicz argued that the questioned design lacks of novelty. He pointed out to the 3D trade mark registration R-91920 owned by Jacek Andruszkiewicz Jolanta Duch s.c. DAYGLOB Biuro Exportowo-Importowe from 6 October 1995.

R-91920

The PPO invalidated the right in registration in its decision of 14 January 2009, case file Sp. 555/07. The PPO held that Jacek Andruszkiwicz had a legal interest in seeking the invalidation, as a competitor in the market of bottles. Euro-Kamil filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 22 June 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 746/09 repealed the contested decision and held it unenforceable. The Court ruled that the PPO did not examine if the legal interest was real and sent this case for reconsideration.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 502/09

June 10th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 2 June 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 502/09 ruled that the examination of the novelty of an industrial design consists of carrying out a comparative analysis of various elements of a solution included in the opposed design and the industrial design applied for the registration and next, indicating of the existing differences and resolving what is their nature.

Wzór Przemysłowy 11780

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Zestaw podstawek reklamowych Ring Fala” (in English: Set of advertising coasters Ring Fala), Rp-11780. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 109/09

April 19th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 April 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 109/09 ruled that is not important, who disclosed the design. The PPO correctly pointed out on the wording of the provisions of Article 103(3)(ii) of the Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej), 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 subsequent 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.
(…)
3. The provision of paragraph (1) shall not prevent a right in registration to be granted, if a design:
(…)
ii) has been disclosed during 12-month period preceding the date according to which priority to obtain a right in registration is determined, by the designer, his successor in title or a third person with the right holder’s consent, as well as if the disclosure has occurred as a consequence of an abuse in relation to the designer or his successor in title.

Only the disclosure by the creator, his legal successor, or – with the consent of the holder – by a third party, and if the disclosure was made as a result of abuse in relation to the creator or his successor in the 12 months period before the priority date, does not harm the novelty requirement, any other publicly available disclosure of a design is an obstacle for the novelty requirement.

Wzór Przemysłowy 10571

This case concerned the industrial design “Parapet okienny” (in English: windowsill), Rp-10571. See also “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design, case VIII SA/Wa 332/08

February 10th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 February 2009 case file VIII SA/Wa 332/08 ruled that not every method of disclousure of an industrial design is relevant, as it provides the opportunity to familiarize with it to persons acting in a professional manner in the same sector. It must be remembered that in accordance with the views of the legal doctrine and commentators, this possibility must be a real, materially relevant, and therefore it has to occur in circumstances that allow to assume the actual knowledge, which is the result of normal proffesional activity, specialized in the given sector. Therefore, it is not about the mere fact of disclosure of a design, but about whether specific people have actually an opportunity to get acquainted with the design.

Wzór Przemysłowy 6991

This case concerned the industrial design “Podstawa słupa” (in English: column base), Rp-6991. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 1215/07

January 2nd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 11 October 2007 case file VI SA/Wa 1215/07 decided on the novelty of an industrial design based on electronic evidences. The court ruled that such evidences are not sufficient. A CD print-out from a database can not be treated as a legal document with an unquestionable date since there are graphical tools which make a modification of such data an easily possibility. In this case such a proof can not be deemed a proper evidence if it is not properly certified. Also a statement issued by a private company is not enough unless it is supported by invoices or official publications of catalogues of exhibitions where such product was shown. A compact disk has to be certified by an expert as regards to a date it was burned.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 29 July 2008 case file II GSK 267/08 upheld this decision.

Rp-6048