Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/industrial-designs/informed-user/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:56:06+00:00

Document:
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 20 September 2010 case file VI SA/Wa 852/10 held that an industrial design has individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression caused by the design that was publicly available before the date according to which the priority is claimed. The scope of creative freedom in developing the design should be taken into account in assessing individual character of the industrial design. The VAC agreed with the Polish Patent Office that the opposed designs are determined by the function to which they were intended. The condition for invalidation of a design is not an infringement of an exclusive right but the statement that the use of industrial design violates personal or property rights of third parties, and the applicant has based its opposition on such arguments. The assessment whether the condition occurs in the light of that provision is therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Polish Patent Office that should decide such case in the litigation procedure.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Ubranko ochronne dla zwierząt” (in English: animal protective gown), Rp-13123. 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. 117 IPL | individual character of a design | 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 15 December 2009 case file VIII SA/Wa 332/09 ruled that he “informed user” is a person who continues to use a product and therefore has some knowledge about its design. It is not a professional. This may be a very attentive consumer who knows what is he or she looking for and who draws attention to all visible elements of the product. The infromed user who uses cartridges for a roller blind, is certainly not an average user or an average purchaser of such product. While assessing the individual character of a cartridge for a roller blind, the scope of creative freedom should be assesed, taking into account the nature of the product and its utilitarian functions, and then, by establishing the characteristics of an “informed user”, the evaluation of a products and the differences should be performed through such prizm, bearing in mind that the “informed user” is one who knows that there are different types of cartridges and who examine them carefully. This judgment is not yet final. The parties may file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.
This judgment concerned the industrial design “Kaseta do rolet” (in English: cartridge for a roller blind), Rp-8019. See also “Polish regulations on industrial designs” and “Polish case law on industrial designs“.
Categories: appearance of the whole or a part of a product | Art. 102 IPL | Art. 104 IPL | industrial designs | informed user | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish law | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
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 in Warsaw of 11 December 2008 case file VI SA/Wa 1827/08. See “Industrial design case VI SA/Wa 1827/08“.
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“.
Categories: appearance of the whole or a part of a product | Art. 103 IPL | industrial designs | informed user | Polish Act on Industrial Property Law | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Patent Office | Polish Supreme Administrative Court.

References: Art. 102
 Art. 103
 Art. 104
 Art. 117
 Art. 102
 Art. 104
 Art. 103