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