Części zamienne w świetle prawa wzorów, prawa konkurencji oraz regulacji prokonsumenckich dotyczących prawa do naprawy

Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace z Prawa Własności Intelektualnej 2025, nr 2, s. 95-131.

Współczesne wysiłki nakierowane na transformacje ekologiczne, wdrożenie aspektów gospodarki wolnego obiegu, zmiany paradygmatu konsumpcyjnego zwracają uwagę na możliwość naprawy produktów jako jeden z czynników przedłużenia żywotności produktów oraz zapobiegania wytwarzaniu nadmiernych ilości odpadów i ich złego zagospodarowania. Możliwość naprawy zakłada dostęp do części zamiennych oraz do podmiotów świadczących usługi naprawcze. Użytkownicy końcowi powinni mieć sposobność wyboru części i usług naprawczych, a w warunkach zdrowej i efektywnej konkurencji na rynku cena za nie również powinna być przystępna. Praktyka zweryfikowała dotychczas te założenia optymistyczno-teoretyczne w tych branżach gospodarczych, w których produkty wielokomponentowe wymagają współdziałania z produktami pomocniczymi (tj. akcesoriami) i są zaprojektowane z myślą o serwisowaniu, naprawie oraz częstej wymianie komponentów w warunkach zwykłego użytkowania. Podręcznikowe przykłady stanowiły samochody i drukarki, choć imperatyw naprawy i dostępności części zamiennych, w tym akcesoriów, rozszerza się obecnie na sprzęt gospodarstwa domowego, urządzenia elektroniczne, sprzęt budowlany itd. Od strony prawnej w regulacjach z różnych gałęzi prawa, takich jak: prawo własności intelektualnej, prawo konkurencji (antymonopolowe), prawo konsumenckie, zauważalne są wysiłki, aby fragmentarycznie rozwiązać pewne zagadnienia w celu usprawnienia rozwoju rynku części zamiennych i usług naprawczych.

The article discusses the issue of spare parts from the perspective of design law, competition law, and pro-consumer regulations promoting the repair of goods and ecodesign requirements. The first section addresses the time when design law was not harmonized, while competition rules alone could not solve the problem of limited access to spare parts and their high prices. The second part looks at the scope of the new and compulsory design repair clause, its impact on the liberalization of the aftermarket of spare parts and maintenance services, and the interplay with the aforementioned consumer regulations. The following section places spare parts within the framework of competition law by emphasising the main difficulty of defining the relevant market so as to establish a competition law infringement. The final part focuses on specific regulations of competition law, which have been present in the automotive sector for many years, with the aim of improving distribution and independent access to spare parts, tools and technical information necessary for repair services. Pro-consumer regulations bring an additional layer of obligations relating to the manufacturing, distribution of spare parts, and the collection and sharing of information for repair purposes. This study argues that the absence of clarity as to the interaction between the legal regulations discussed here may compromise the achievement of the goal of improving competition on the aftermarket of repair services.

Not-so-great expectations of the EU Directive 2024/1799 promoting repair and its nexus with IP protection

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2025, online first, poz. 049.

Increasing the affordability of repair choices and participation of independent service providers is at the core of the recently adopted Directive 2024/1799 on common rules promoting the repair of goods, which is part of the EU legislative agenda fostering the transition to a competitive, climate-neutral and circular economy. This article takes a critical look at the scope of the Directive 2024/1799 and specifically into the ‘obligation to repair’ and its relationship with the protection of intellectual property (IP). The obligation to repair binds primarily manufacturers of certain type of products, namely those under ‘repairability requirements’ that are laid down by a distinct body of regulatory measures. Its goal is to facilitate access to spare parts, repair tools and manuals so that a wider choice of repair options is available to consumers. The article analyses the mandatory nature of the obligation to repair and its practical consequences. The main shortcoming identified is derived from the legal possibility conferred on manufacturers to impede repair by various means if justified by the protection of IP. The article focuses on the issues of ‘spare parts’ and ‘repair’ to demonstrate the difficulty of meeting the IP-compliance requirement if a party that uses a spare part within the ambit of the ‘obligation of repair’ under Directive 2024/1799 were to relate to the design repair clause. This example supports the argument that the most likely effect of the Directive 2024/1799 is that repairing products set under the repairability requirements will be possible on the market yet will remain under the terms and control of the manufacturers.

A multi-perspective view on visibility in EU design law

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2024, t. 19, nr 8, s. 648-657.

In EU design law, the parameter of visibility must multitask. This article aims to discuss its meaning and legal consequences against the current and amended legal provisions for designs. As the legal notion of a design is the ‘appearance of a product’, visibility has been woven into design features’ requirement of perceptibility to the eye. Visibility also aids in the identification of the object of protection for a registered design through the registration documentation and, analogically, the identification of an unregistered design through proofs of disclosure. By this token, design features visibly displayed by the representation/disclosure of a design determine the comparison between the overall impression of a design and another design/product for the purposes of invalidity or enforcement. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has also recently framed visibility in the perspective of evidentiary issues of technical functionality. Visibility represents a prerequisite for the assessment of novelty and/or individual character of a design of a component part of a complex product. This article looks into the CJEU’s guidance concerning the protection of parts of products, including the interpretation of the criterion of visibility during normal use that applies to component parts.

Prior art in EU design law and its worldwide implications : taking advantage of flexibilities or being obstructed by ambiguities

Design Law : Global Law and Practice / Dana Beldiman (ed.) – Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2024, s. 503-540.

The scope of prior art is instrumental in assessing the validity of design rights. Although novelty, being the main requirement of granting protection, is a common denominator of design legislation worldwide, the parameters determining the state of art vary. This work explores how the EU harmonized design regime defines prior art. Specifically, the chapter discusses the EU-model of relative novelty in terms of what constitutes relevant disclosure, normative exceptions to disclosure and particularities related to disclosure of unregistered designs. The chapter also explores the subject-matter which can serve as term of comparison between a contested design and a design from the prior art. The concepts of design and prior art serve to accentuate the specifics of non-EU design laws in the final part that explores the interaction between EU and non-EU design systems. The concluding remarks advocate for providing more coherent legal solutions among national laws to benefit global business.

Znaki towarowe jako wskaźnik innowacyjności?

Ad cuius bonum? : o wartościach i interesach zasługujących na ochronę prawną : księga jubileuszowa Profesor Heleny Żakowskiej-Henzler / redakcja naukowa Żaneta Zemła-Pacud, Tomasz Zimny. Warszawa : Wydawnictwo INP PAN, 2023, s. 385-397.

This piece examines the relationship between trade marks and innovation activities and outputs. It acknowledges the growing interest of the legal doctrine as to how trade Marks may enhance and transgress their basic function of being source-indicator and reputation-related asset in order to support the development of innovation activities. However, market studies do not confer consistent results as to whether trade marks facilitate the re investment in innovation, serve as valuable intangibles monetized to attract capital, ensure successful commercialization of outputs, or are simply used as barrier to entry with various anti-competitive effects. The present piece looks into two recent economic studies to verify the assumption concerning the positive corelation between trade marks and innovation. One study analyses the role played by trade marks in the commercialization of sustainable innovations by Dutch SMEs. Another study maps the regional trade mark activity in 47 Japanese prefectures in order to evaluate the extent to which trade marks capture soft innovation. This piece supports the need of interdisciplinary studies in order to correctly assess such issues as: the meaning of innovation, the stage at which trade marks connect with and determine innovation, the consequences of the trade marks-innovation link, and the parameters for measuring it.