In its response, the defendant requested that the claim be dismissed, arguing that the claims were unjustified in principle and unsubstantiated in amount. Furthermore, the company claimed that the disputed designs were invalid. Additionally, the defendant filed a counterclaim seeking the annulment of the disputed Community designs registered in the name of the plaintiff, arguing that they did not meet the requirements of novelty and individual character. In its justification, it stated that the set sold by the defendant had n publicly disclosed as early as March 2003 and had n manufactured in C. and placed on the market, including within the European Union, since March 4, 2003. To support its claims, the company attached evidence from documents, including the manufacturer’s technical documentation. The plaintiff did not file a response to the counterclaim. In examining the case, the court pointed out that the plaintiff had registered the disputed design with OHIM (now EUIPO) on August 5, 2004, but that it was not new and did not have an individual character, which is a condition for its validity. The court indicated that the design depicts a cup viewed only from above and below, not allowing for a complete, overall view, the determination of the shape and height of the cup, and the shape of the handle. In assessing the design based on the evidence gathered, the court stated that the features that were registered do not have an individual character and were publicly known before the date of registration of the disputed design. Furthermore, they do not create a different overall impression on the informed user than other cups commonly available on the market. As demonstrated, the same design was developed for products of a Chinese factory in March 2003 and then made public.
Subsequently, the court indicated that, in the context of this case, a sophisticated user is someone with a greater understanding of the subject matter than the average user. This is not the creator, the average recipient, or an expert in a specific field, but rather someone who can be placed between them. Therefore, this category can include individuals who manage and are involved in the equipment of restaurants and cafes. Furthermore, any person, most often a woman, who pays attention to the tableware used in her home can also be considered such a user. In light of the submitted evidence, the court found that the defendant had proven the invalidity of the disputed design by presenting Chinese technical documentation for the cup and saucer, as well as evidence from witness testimonies.
Taking the above into account, the District Court in Warsaw, in its judgment of March 22, 2010 (XXII GWwp 8/09), dismissed the main claim, among other things, and, in the counterclaim, declared the Community design invalid.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
