Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
PROTOTYPE?THEclaiMFORinFORMaTiOnbaSEDOnTHEcOUncilREGUlaTiOn...
mercialscaleservicesusedininfringingactivities;or(d)wasindicatedby
thepersonreferredtoinpoint(a),(b)or(c)asbeinginvolvedinthepro-
duction,manufactureordistributionofthegoodsortheprovisionofthe
services”.Meanwhile,asperpara.2oftheaforementionedArticleofthe
DirectiveNo.2004/48:flTheinformationreferredtoinparagraph1shall,
asappropriate,comprise:(a)thenamesandaddressesoftheproducers,
manufacturers,distributors,suppliersandotherpreviousholderofthe
goodsorservices,aswellastheintendedwholesalersandretailers;(b)in-
formationofthequantitiesproduced,manufactured,delivered,received
orordered,aswellasthepriceobtainedforthegoodsorservicesinques-
tion”.Paragraph3(beingoflessimportanceintermsofcurrentreasoning)
stipulatesthatthementionedrulesareappliedwithoutprejudiceto,inter
alia,personaldataprotection.
Thecitedregulationhasbecomeasubjectofacomprehensiveanalysis
bothinPolishandforeignjurisprudence.Forthepurposeofthispaper,it
issufficienttomentionseveralobservationsthatweremade.Firstofall,
itisunderlinedthattheclaimforinformationisfldiscovery”innature,
i.e.itenablestheapplicanttogettoknowtheidentityofotherpreviously
concealedinfringers.8Togiveanexample:theinfringer,engagedintodis-
tributionofflpirated”goods,mightberequestedtoprovidetheinforma-
tionaboutthesourceofthesecommodities,subsequentlydeliveringthe
informationoftheidentityoftheirproducer.Whatismore,itmaybe,in
away,flverifying”innature.Inthecontextoftheexampleabove,ifthe
applicantrequeststheinformationaboutproducerfromthedistributor
and,atthesametime,bymeansofaseparateclaimheisprovidedwith
theinformationaboutthedistributorfromtheproducer’sside,heisable
toverify(compare)thedetailsobtainedfrombothindependentsources.
Inaddition,thepremiseforsubmissionoftheclaimforinformationisto
proveorsubstantiatetheinfringement.Whenitcomestotheadmissibi-
lityandscopeoftheclaimforinformation,theevaluationinthecontext
oftheprincipleofproportionalityisnecessary,asstatedbythequoted
regulation,theclaimofplaintiffneedstobejustifiedandproportionate.9The
principleofproportionalityisalsoanchoredinArt.3para.2oftheDirec-
8OnthebasisofGermanprovisionswithregardtotheclaimforinformation
existingpriortotheenactmentoftheDirectiveNo.2004/48,andconsideredto
beprototypeforthisregulation,itwasindicatedthattheclaimisfldiscovery”in
nature(Ausforschungsauskunt,Ermittlungsauskunft),forinstance,M.Wiume,Der
AuskunftanspruchimMarkenrecht,FrankfurtamMain2002,p.392.Asimilarpoint
ofviewinthePolishliteratureseemstobeexpressedbyM.Rejdak,Wydobycie
dowodówodpozwanegowpolskimpostępowaniucywilnymonaruszenieprawwłasności
przemysłowej,ZNUJPzPWIIssue4(118)/2012,p.120(footnote148).
9SeetheapproachofPolishscholarsquotedinfurtherreasoning.
79
