Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 103 IPL

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.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 518/09

January 7th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its 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 articles 103 and 104 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.

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.

Industrial design, case VI SA/Wa 189/09

October 10th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 9 October 2009, case file VI SA/Wa 189/09 interpreted the 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.

The VAC ruled that 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

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 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 “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design law, 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.

Wzór Przemysłowy Rp-9201

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Zadaszenie drzwi” (in English: door canopy), Rp-9201. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.

Industrial design law, case VI SA/Wa 1088/08

August 12th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 11 August 2008, case file VI SA/Wa 1088/08, ruled that it is not enough to prove that the design applied for differs from opposed designs, but it must also be proved that it does not contain the characteristics of these designs – further – that it is not in fact the sum of the characteristics of these designs, it is not a combination of opposed designs.

This judgment concerned the industrial design “Wiadro” (in English: bucket), PRZ-1077.

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.

This case concerned the industrial design “Rękojeść sztućców” (in English: handle for cutlery), Rp-6048.

Rp-6048

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

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