It's not often that Class 99 gets to report on design law developments in Poland, but celebrated Polish English-language blogger (and Class 46 team member) Tomasz Rychlicki has just provided
this comment on a decision of the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC), Warsaw, judgment of 21 July 2009, case act signature
VI SA/Wa 518/09. In that case the court ruled that, where the scope of creative freedom is greater, the assessment of the originality of the design may justify the thesis that the differences should have an easily-discernible character. In contrast, in the case of a design where there exists a small range of creative freedom, even small differences will not remain unnoticed by the oriented user. Says Tomasz, the court explains that
"The design must be different from the pattern already known and cannot create the impression that a product of such a form of a design (product) has already been seen. It is necessary to study compared designs, including the overall impression which is triggered by the design in terms of the so-called “oriented user” and the term “oriented user” indicates the person who uses the product/design on a permanent basis, so it is not, nor is the average consumer, or the average expert".
It's not often that Class 99 gets to report on design law developments in Poland, but celebrated Polish English-language blogger (and Class 46 team member) Tomasz Rychlicki has just provided this comment on a decision of the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC), Warsaw, judgment of 21 July 2009, case act signature VI SA/Wa 518/09. In that case the court ruled that, where the scope of creative freedom is greater, the assessment of the originality of the design may justify the thesis that the differences should have an easily-discernible character. In contrast, in the case of a design where there exists a small range of creative freedom, even small differences will not remain unnoticed by the oriented user. Says Tomasz, the court explains that 
No comments:
Post a Comment