Polish IP & IT law » Art. 103 IPL

Archive for: Art. 103 IPL

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.

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

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-9198

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 designs

January 7th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

I do not write too often about judgments of Polish courts regarding designs so I decided to fill this gap. The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 21 July 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 518/09, ruled that where the scope of creative freedom is greater, the assessment of the originality of the design may justify the thesis that the differences should have easily discernible character. By contrast, in the case of a design with a small range of creative freedom, even small differences will not remain unnoticed by the informed user. The design must be different from designs already known and cannot create the impression that a product of such a form of a design has already been seen. It is necessary to examine the compared designs, including the overall impression which is triggered by the design in terms of the so-called “informed user”. The term “informed user” indicates the person who uses the product/design on a permanent basis, so it is not, nor is the average consumer, or the average expert.

Wzór przemysłowy 11751

This judgment interpreted inter alia provisions of 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.

3. The provision of paragraph (1) shall not prevent a right in registration to be granted, if a design:
(i) has been disclosed to a third party under explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality,
(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.

and article 104 of the IPL

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.

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

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 189/09

October 10th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

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.

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“.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 109/09

April 19th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a 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 article 103(3)(ii) of the IPL.

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.

This case concerned the industrial design “Parapet okienny” (in English: windowsill), Rp-10571.

Wzór Przemysłowy 10571

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

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 1827/08

December 12th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 11 December 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1827/08, ruled that the protection of an industrial design may only apply to the appearance of an object – its external appearance, not to its internal structure. The cassation compliant bought before the Supreme Administrative Court was rejected in a decision of 16 December 2009, case file II GSK 238/09.

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“.

January 2nd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

There is a very interesting judgement of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 October 2007, case file VI SA/Wa 1215/07. It concerns a dispute regarding an industrial design of a handle for cutlery which is registered for Gerlach S.A. The Court had to decide about the novelty of a 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.

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

Industrial design, case II GSK 277/06

March 28th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) in a judgment of 20 March 2007, case file II GSK 277/06, published in the electronic database LEX, under the no 321283, ruled on the definition of the appearance of the product.

It refers to the appearance given by certain characteristics or patterns perceived visually and thus causing certain general impression while watching the product of which the design has been applied or is included, in the form in which it occurs in the market during the presentation and the acquisition of goods. Elements of the goods that are not visible or because of its characteristics may not be visible without a significant change in the form of a product during its examination on the market, are not relevant for assessing novelty and individual character of the industrial design, and thus cannot be protected.

This case concerned the industrial design “Lód ekstrudowany jednosmakowy z nadzieniem” (In English: ice cream extruded with single taste stuffing), Rp-7461.

Wzór Przemysłowy 7461

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