Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
PROTOTYPE?THEclaiMFORinFORMaTiOnbaSEDOnTHEcOUncilREGUlaTiOn...
aswellascommonlackoftherespecttowardstheintellectualproperty
shallbealsoconsideredavitalargumentinthisruling.
ThisargumentationoftheSupremeCourtmightbe,tosomeextent,
arguedwith.Firstofall,theSupremeCourtignoredthefactthatactu-
ally,inArt.2861p.w.p.theprincipleofsufficientsubstantiationisexplicitly
providedfor,literally:highlikelihoodoftheinfringementoftheindus-
trialpropertyrights.Ontheotherhand,thisprincipleisnotexplicitly
incorporatedintoArt.80para.1pr.aut.Thejurisprudence,however,ex-
pressesthegeneralviewthateveninthiscasesufficientsubstantiationis
required.Itispointedoutthat,interalia,inaccordancewithArt.8ofthe
DirectiveNo.2004/48,itisexpectedthattheclaimofaplaintiffshallbe
justified20.Admittedly,inrelationtotheclaimfromArt.105para.2pr.aut.,
itisconsideredthatsubstantiationisnotnecessary,regardlessthestance
takenbythePolishSupremeCourt21.ThecounterpartofArt.2861p.w.p.
andArt.80para.1pr.aut.,i.e.theprovisionimplementinginu.o.p.o.r.
Art.8oftheDirectiveNo.2004/48isArt.36bu.o.p.o.r.(precisely,themean-
ingofArt.80para.1pr.aut.andArt.36bu.o.p.o.r.isidentical).Therefore,
ifassumedthatincaseoftheclaimforinformationbasedonArt.36b
para.1subpara.2u.o.p.o.r.,whichisexecutedtofacilitatetheclaimof
plantbreeder’srightinfringement,thesubstantiationisrequired,while
theclaimforinformationbasedonArt.23au.o.p.o.r.,whichisexecuted
tofacilitatetheclaimforremunerationbasedontheagriculturalexemp-
tion,doesnotrequirethesubstantiation,quiteaninexplicablediscrep-
ancyarises.Thesituationturnsouttobeevenmorecomplicateddueto
thefactthat,asitwasalreadymentionedabove,accordingtoCJEUfailure
topaytheremunerationbasedonagriculturalexemptionis,asamatter
offact,theinfringementoftheplantbreeder’srightandentailssanctions,
althoughinthePolishliteraturetheassumptionthatfailuretopaythere-
munerationforfairuseofintellectualpropertyrightsconstitutesinfringe-
mentofthoserightscausescontroversy22.Ofcourse,ithastobestated
thatthePolishlegislatordoesnothave,forobviousreasons,anobligation
toimplementtheRegulationNo.2100/94tou.o.p.o.r.,however,itcannot
beoverlookedthatu.o.p.o.r.provisionsregardingtheagriculturalexemp-
20J.Barta,R.Markiewicz[in:]J.Barta,R.Markiewicz(ed.),Prawoautorskie
iprawapokrewne.Komentarz,edition5,Warsaw,2011;p.513;E.Traple[in:]J.Barta
(ed.)Systemprawaprywatnego.Vol.13.Prawoautorskie,edition3,Warsaw,2013,
pp.961,962;P
.Podrecki[in:]D.Flisak(ed.),Prawoautorskieiprawapokrewne.Ko-
mentarz,Warsaw,2014,p.1124.
21J.Błeszyński[in:]J.Barta(ed.)System...,p.878;JudgmentofthePolishSu-
premeCourt,17November2011,incaseIIICSK30/11(availableatLex).
22K.Felchner[in:]K.Felchner(ed.),Ustawaoochronieprawnejodmianroślin.
Komentarz,Warsaw,2009,pp.149–151.
83
