Industrial designs between Scylla and Charybdis
PDF (Język Polski)

Keywords

applied arts
industrial designs
copyright protection of designs
sui generis design protection
originality requirement

How to Cite

Tischner, A. (2015). Industrial designs between Scylla and Charybdis. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny I Socjologiczny, 77(2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2015.77.2.9

Number of views: 292


Number of downloads: 436

Abstract

Industrial designs are protected under intellectual property law within numerous regimes. This may be perceived as excess protection and provoke attempts to limit the hypertrophy. Recent judgments of the Polish Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court relating to the criteria of copyright and design protection constitute an incentive aimed at verifying certain concepts and interpretations, as these decisions endanger the reasonableness of the protection of creativity by intellectual property law. The decisions show lack of comprehension on the part of the courts of the core concepts of copyright and design protection, which also tend to mix up the criteria. As a consequence of such interpretation, both regimes resemble the mythological sea monsters – Scylla and Charybdis.
https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2015.77.2.9
PDF (Język Polski)

References

Bently, L. (1967), Requiem for Registration? Reflections on the History of the UK Registered Designs System, w: A. Firth (red.), The Prehistory and Development of Intellectual Property Systems, Perspectives on Intellectual Property Series, London: 1-46.

Brancusi, L. (2012), Wzór wspólnotowyi jego zakres ochrony, Warszawa.

Cieślikowa, A. (2001), Design czy dizajn?, „Kwartalnik 2+3D 1(IV): 8.

Dinwoodie, G. (1999), The Death of Ontology: A Teleological Approach to Trademark Law, Iowa Law Review 84: 611-752.

Geiger, Ch. (2008), Flexibilising Copyright – Remedies to the Privatisation of Information by Copyright Law, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 39(2): 178-197.

Kur, A. (1993), The Green Paper’s “Design Approach” – What’s Wrong with It?, European Intellectual Property Review 15(10): 374-378.

Leistner, M., Hansen, G. (2008), Die Begründung des Urheberrechts im digitalen Zeitalter – Versuch einer Zusammenführung von individualistischen und utilitaristischen Rechtfertigungsbemühungen, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 6: 479-490.

Lewinski, S. von (2014), Introduction: The Notion of Work under EU Law, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil 12: 1098-1100.

Mont, J. du, Creativity in Designs [w przygotowaniu].

Papanek, V. (2012), Dizajn dla realnego świata, Łódź.

Peifer K.-N. (2014), “Individualität” or Originality? Core Concepts in German Copyright Law, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil 12: 1100-1105.

Quaedvlieg, A. (2014), The Tripod of Originality and the Concept of Work in Dutch and European Copyright, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil 12: 1105-1112.

Stone, D. (2012), European Union Design Law, Oxford.

Stróżewski, W. (1983), Dialektyka twórczości, Kraków.

Suthersanen, U. (2010), Design Law: European Union and United States of America, wyd. 2, London.

Suthersanen, U. (2013), Function, Art and Fashion: Do We Need the EU Design Law?, w: Geiger, Ch. (ed.), Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, Cheltenham-Northampton: 355-381.

Tischner, A. (2013), Zakaz nieuczciwego naśladownictwa w ustawie o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji a ochrona postaci produktu w prawie własności przemysłowej, Kwartalnik Urzędu Patentowego RP 5:110-116.

Tomkowicz, R. (2012), Intellectual Property Overlaps, London-New York.

Wojciechowska, A. (1990), Wzornictwo przemysłowe – zagadnienie przedmiotu ochrony prawnej, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Prace z Wynalazczości i Ochrony Własności Intelektualnej 54, Kraków.

Ksenofont, Pisma sokratyczne, tłum. L. Joachimowicz, Warszawa 1967.