Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/polish-law/polish-act-on-industrial-property-law/art-105-ipl/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:58:34+00:00

Document:
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 922/10 ruled on three important factors of the design law. The VAC held that the “overall impression” refers to the design as a whole, and not to its individual characteristics. It is therefore a general effect, the general feeling that is caused by compared designs on an informed user – whether it is a different impression, or the same. The informed user is a person well informed and having a good understanding and knowledge in this field, who is using certain items or groups of items, with knowledge about this products which is more practical or theoretical than the average user and having more abilities to perceive the characteristics of the object then the average user, and being infromed in the state of industrial design in the given field and being capable of distinguishing the available designs. The scope of creative freedom is determined by the functional characteristics of the object and the earlier state of designs. The oriented user must have a sufficient knowledge to assess the scope of creative freedom and be able to see even relatively small differences, important for the designs of low creative freedom.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Uchwyt meblowy” (in English: furniture handle), Rp-10794. 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“.
Categories: Art. 102 IPL | Art. 103 IPL | Art. 104 IPL | Art. 105 IPL | industrial designs | informed user | invalidation of a right in registration | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 921/10 ruled on three important factors of the design law. The VAC held that the “overall impression” refers to the design as a whole, and not to its individual characteristics. It is therefore a general effect, the general feeling that is caused by compared designs on an informed user – whether it is a different impression, or the same. The informed user is a person well informed and having a good understanding and knowledge in this field, who is using certain items or groups of items, with knowledge about this products which is more practical or theoretical than the average user and having more abilities to perceive the characteristics of the object then the average user, and being infromed in the state of industrial design in the given field and being capable of distinguishing the available designs. The scope of creative freedom is determined by the functional characteristics of the object and the earlier state of designs. The oriented user must have a sufficient knowledge to assess the scope of creative freedom and be able to see even relatively small differences, important for the designs of low creative freedom.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Uchwyt meblowy” (in English: furniture handle), Rp-10801. 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“.
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.
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“.
Categories: Art. 102 IPL | Art. 103 IPL | Art. 104 IPL | Art. 105 IPL | Art. 107 §3 APC | Art. 26 IPL | Art. 7 APC | Art. 77 APC | industrial designs | informed user | invalidation of a right in registration | novelty of an industrial design | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 December 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 1706/09 held that there is no doubt that only the specialist is qualified to comment on the general impression that questioned designs produced on an informed user, as this specialist is also deemed as the informed user within the meaning of Article 104 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.
The Court also noted that in the assessment of evidence and proper application of the rule of law provided in Article 104 the IPL, the concept of “informed user”, “general impression” and “degree of creative freedom in developing the design”, which have not beed defined by the legislature, had to explained by the PPO and the Court. In the opinion of the Court, the essential arguments of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 23 October 2007 case file II CSK 302/07 could be applied to this case case. See “Industrial design case, II CSK 302/07“.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Kanapa tapicerowana rozkładana” (in English: upholstered sofa bed) Rp-11355. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
Categories: Art. 102 IPL | Art. 104 IPL | Art. 105 IPL | Art. 132(2)(ii) IPL | Art. 24 IPL | informed user | invalidation of a right in registration | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
I have to write about another important judgment I forgot to report two years ago. This time it is the judgment of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 23 October 2007, case file II CSK 302/07, published in the Jurisprudence of the Polish Courts (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich) of 2009, No 6, p. 451, together with the gloss by Maria Poźniak-Niedzielska at p. 455.
Some readres may be confused with regard to different courts deciding the same subject matter – in this case – designs and I need to explain that the administrative proceedings in designs’ cases, in general, concerns all decisions made or orders issued by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (the PPO takes decisions on granting, refusal to grant of a right in registration for an industrial design etc.) which are liable to complaint lodged to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. Judgments made by the VAC may be a subject of a cassation complaint filed before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). However, cases with regard to infringement of a right in registration granted for an industrial design are decided in civil law proceedings. That was the reason the aforementioned case was decided at the last stage by the Supreme Court. See “Administrative, civil and criminal proceedings in trade mark cases in Poland“.
The Supreme Court had to give the interpretion of provisions of Article 104 and 105 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. For an industrial design a right in registration may be granted.
2. The right in registration shall confer the exclusive right to exploit the industrial design for profit or for professional purposes throughout the territory of the Republic of Poland.
3. The holder shall enjoy the right to prevent any third party from making, offering, putting on the market, importing, exporting or using a product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied, or stocking such a product for those purposes.
4. The right conferred by the registration of an industrial design shall include any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression. Article 104(2) shall apply accordingly.
5. The right conferred by the registration of an industrial design shall be limited to the kind of products, in respect of which the protection has been applied for.
6. Subject to Article 111, the term of a right in registration shall be 25 years counted from the date of filing of an industrial design application with the Patent Office, the said term being divided into 5-year periods.
The SC held that the examination whether there was any infringement of the registered industrial design requires a comprehensive comparison of designs from the perspective of the person using (on a permanent basis) these items, which belong to specific group of goods, a person being oriented/informed in designs that originate from the creative freedom and to examine/assess whether the overall impression produced by the questioned design on such a person differs or not from the general impression caused by the registered design.
Legal commentators stressed the fact that the concept of “informed user” (oriented) was implemented in the IPL following the adjustment of Polish law to protection standards that exist within the EU law. The person being an informed user is a newcomer in the pantheon of fictional characters of industrial property rights, functioning as a certain pattern. In article 26(1) of the IPL already exists such character called “a person skilled in the art”.
1. An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The Polish commentators also noted and commented on foregin judgments such as Procter & Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd.,  EWCA Civ 936 and Woodhouse UK Plc v Architectural Lighting. Systems t/a Aquila Design and Urbis Lighting Ltd.  ECPCC (Designs) 25,  RPC 1 and OHIM Invalidity Division’s decisions such as Eredu S Coop v Arrmet SRL, ICD 24, 27 April 2004 and Honda Motor Company Ltd v Kwang Yang Motor Company Ltd, ICD 1006, 30 August 2006.
Categories: appearance of the whole or a part of a product | Art. 104 IPL | Art. 105 IPL | EU law | industrial designs | informed user | infringement of registered industrial design | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Supreme Court.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 10 June 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 543/08 wrongly named the design rights calling it “the right of protection”, although the proper legal terminology is “the right in registration” according to Article 105 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.
Categories: Art. 105 IPL | industrial designs | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

References: Art. 102
 Art. 103
 Art. 104
 Art. 105
 Art. 102
 Art. 103
 Art. 104
 Art. 105
 Art. 107
 §3
 Art. 26
 Art. 7
 Art. 77
 Art. 102
 Art. 104
 Art. 105
 Art. 132
 Art. 24
 EWCA 
 Art. 104
 Art. 105
 Art. 105