This paper offers a response to the commentary by Andrzej Falkowski and Justyna Olszewska (2026) on our empirical study presented in the article “Spare Parts, Repairs, Trade Marks and Consumer Understanding” (IIC (2023), vol. 54, pp. 26–60). Our study examined how different forms of trade mark use in the online commercialization of non-original spare parts – under the EU repair clause framework – affect consumer evaluation and identification of commercial origin. It did not investigate brand equity, nor did it compare original parts with non-original components. At the outset, we emphasize that the study was conducted exclusively for academic, non-commercial purposes and forms part of our broader research on the perception of trade marks in the context of circular economy practices. In contrast to Andrzej Falkowski – who acted as an expert witness on behalf of Audi AG in related court proceedings – we have no affiliation with any actors from the automotive sector. In this response, we address several core misunderstandings underlying the commentary. First, we clarify that we have never claimed that the trade marks do not influence products’ evaluation in general; rather, we reported that, within the specific experimental conditions examined, quality assessments and purchase intentions did not substantially vary depending on the form of trade mark use in the commercialization of non-original spare parts. Second, we explain that separate analyses for the small minority of participants who incorrectly identified AUDI as the manufacturer (as suggested by Falkowski and Olszewska) were not central to the study’s aims, which concerned permissible trade mark use and origin identification – not brand endorsement effects. We also comment on the additional analyses conducted by the Falkowski and Olszewska based on our openly available dataset, noting both the generally positive evaluations of spare parts and concerns regarding selective result presentation and graphical scaling that may exaggerate perceived differences. Finally, we reiterate that our empirical study was methodologically sound and aligned with its stated objectives. It should be understood as a contribution to academic discourse on the legitimate use of trade marks in the context of circular economy practices, rather than as advocacy for any party or as evidentiary material in ongoing litigation.

In the area of EU design law, according to this chapter, fascinating issues, such as subject matter, scope of protection and overlap with other forms of protection, marginalise the problem of authorship and ownership. Paradoxically, this issue provided a strong impetus for the Europeanisation of design law and subsequently was the first Community design case to reach the CJEU. Although the unified European design regime in many aspects mirrors the prior EU trademark regime, some problems regarding the authorship and ownership of Community designs, due to the differing nature of trademarks, could see the light of the day for the first time only within the framework of the unified design protection. With respect to entitlement and ownership, the autonomous albeit not exhaustive EU law is complemented by national laws, making its application a very demanding task which resembles the work of an equilibrist.

Recent decisions in design cases in Europe (e.g. the Apple and Trunki cases) have undermined trust in the EU sui generis design protection. It is the identification of the object of protection that appears to be one of the most acute problems of the EU design protection. The chapter discusses this issue in the context of communication related to the subject matter of the design protection. The EU design regime relies solely on visual code. The recipients of a message (design claims) communicated by the sender (applicant, rightholder) at the very moment of emergence of the design protection are unspecified third parties. The system of claiming design in the EU adds further complications as it offers formal and informal protection and is consequently based on a manifold claim format. The mechanism of providing notice to the public by way of design claims does not work properly if codes of claiming and the process of their cognition and interpretation are unclear and blurred.