In the justification, the plaintiff stated that the parties to the proceedings conduct identical business activities in the same town, namely the production and sale of furniture, which clearly confirms that they compete directly for customers. Furthermore, L. Ś. has the right to the registration of a Community design, depicting an upholstered bed, with a priority date of February 12, 2013, which was created by an employee of the plaintiff. In September 2014, the plaintiff learned that the defendant was selling copies of her bed at several trade fairs. After an inspection by L. Ś., i.e., after purchasing the disputed bed, it turned out that the beds were identical.
In response to the lawsuit, the defendant requested that the claim be dismissed, stating that he began producing the disputed bed in the fall of 2014, based on a design by one of his employees. He has so far produced 4 beds, one of which was purchased by the plaintiff, and the remaining 3 are in his offer. Furthermore, according to the defendant, the beds he offers differ from the plaintiff’s design in many visible elements, which a discerning user would certainly notice.
In the case, the court stated that the plaintiff is indeed entitled to the Community design registered for products in the form of beds, with a priority date of February 12, 2013. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant produced four units of the disputed beds, of which only one was sold for the price of 1500 PLN. Regarding the essence of the case, the court pointed out that when comparing the beds of both parties, it must be concluded that the overall impression that the defendant’s bed creates on an informed user does not differ from the impression created by the plaintiff’s Community design. The District Court, referring to the informed user, stated that in this case, it would be a person who purchases this type of furniture to furnish their own apartment or house, as well as a person who professionally deals with interior design and people who run furniture stores. According to the court, such people are aware of the existence of various bed designs and that the freedom of design in this area is not restricted. Given the intended use of the product, which is a bed, informed users pay attention to the aesthetic and functional features of the beds. Therefore, the court noted that there are many beds with diverse designs offered on the market, while the defendant’s bed, in the context of the plaintiff’s bed, is very similar, as it replicates all the most characteristic elements of the L. Ś. bed. The general outline of the bed, the general elements (frame, backrest, and headboards), and their proportions are identical. Taking this into account, the court concluded that the defendant infringes the plaintiff’s exclusive right.
Subsequently, the court addressed the sanctions it could impose on the defendant. Regarding the request to make the judgment public, the court stated that this request was only partially justified, specifically concerning the placement of information about the judgment on the defendant’s website. The plaintiff did not demonstrate that the extent of the defendant’s infringements warranted the publication of such information in the press. In the court’s opinion, in such a situation, the publication of the judgment on the defendant’s website for a period of three months is adequate to the scale of the infringements. Furthermore, the court indicated that the request to order the defendant to pay the unjustly obtained benefits in the amount corresponding to the proven revenue obtained by the defendant from the sale of the bed infringing the plaintiff’s rights also deserved consideration.
In light of the above, the District Court in Warsaw, in its judgment of May 15, 2015 (case file number XXII GWwp 5/15), ordered the defendant to cease the production, offering, advertising, distribution, export, or use of the product in the form of beds described in the complaint. Additionally, it ordered the defendant to pay L. Ś. the unjustly obtained benefits in the amount of 1500 zł and to place on his website, used in his business activities, for a period of three months, in an area of at least 1/3 of the page, an advertisement that appears immediately after opening the page and is directly related to the issued judgment. In all other respects, the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and ruled on the costs of the proceedings in favor of the plaintiff.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
