In September 2014, the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland invalidated the registration of the industrial design entitled: “Filter for liquid aluminum.” The justification stated that the design in question did not meet the requirement of individual character, which was related to the fact that the overall impression it creates on an informed user does not differ from the overall impression created by another design that was publicly available before the priority date of the design in question. This is confirmed, among other things, by the attached invoice from June 2005, which refers to filters in the shape of a sombrero. According to the authority, the differences between the conflicting designs indicated by the applicant could not have affected the overall impression, as the applicant himself admitted that sombrero-shaped filters were available on the market and did not indicate any different, significant features of the two designs. The statement submitted by the applicant regarding the difference in shape is also inconsistent with the evidence gathered. Therefore, the above circumstances confirm that the industrial design in question was not characterized by the features of novelty and individual character
The decision of the authority was appealed by the entitled party to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.
According to the court, the assessment of the evidence by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland did not exceed the limits of free evaluation of evidence. Also, the allegations regarding the questioning of the authenticity of the drawing submitted by the applicant were not supported in any way by contradictory evidence. Therefore, the evidence presented during the proceedings confirms that the disputed design was publicly available before the priority date. The court also agreed that the designs in question are almost identical. The court also supported the definition of an average user, as established by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland, which in this case is a person who uses sieves to filter liquid aluminum during the operation of a liquid aluminum filtration machine. Therefore, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, in its judgment of June 6, 2015, dismissed the complaint of L. K.
The entitled party, not agreeing with the decision, filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, appealing the judgment of the court of first instance in its entirety and requesting its annulment and referral of the case for re-examination. The main allegations concerned the violation of substantive law through incorrect interpretation and improper application (Art. 102 and Art. 104 of the Patent Law) and the violation of procedural rules, which had a significant impact on the outcome of the case.
In deciding the case, the NSA essentially agreed with the position of the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland and the Administrative Court in Warsaw, emphasizing that the analysis of whether a design meets the requirement of individual character can only be based on the features disclosed in the description and drawings that distinguish the design from others. Therefore, the comparison in the proceedings, focusing solely on the features visible during the use of products manufactured using the design in question, is correct. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate prior use of the design in question. Established case law of administrative courts clearly states that evidence of prior public disclosure of the contested design through its introduction into commerce may include invoices bearing the date of sale of products in which an identical design is used compared to the design in question (e.g., NSA ruling of November 3, 2003, case file no. II S.A. 2492/02, NSA ruling of February 29, 2012, case file no. II GSK 76/11). Regarding the remaining objections, the NSA stated that the appellant did not demonstrate their impact on the outcome of the case, and therefore they were not considered.
In light of the above, the Supreme Administrative Court, in its ruling of March 1, 2018 (II GSK 1274/16), dismissed the cassation appeal.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
