Registrability of Works of Art as Trademarks Recently, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) and the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (“HIPO”) have been asked in several cases to examine whether a work of art, in particular a painting, can be registered as a trademark. If a work of art is protected by copyright,…
Following the inspirational blogs by Agnieszka Sztoldman and Katharina Schmid’s on slogans here and here, I would like to share some fairly recent decisions from Norway. They show that there is “hope in a hanging snore” for the protection of promotional slogans in Norway. It begins with the outdoor apparel slogan NEVER STOP EXPLORING. The…
A trade mark infringement matter which has been making the headlines in Norway the last week concerns the small Norwegian beverage producer O. Mathisen´s product JALLASPRITE, which is a lemon flavoured soft drink. Coca-Cola, being the proprietor of the registered and probably reputed trade mark SPRITE, are none too happy about this. O.Mathisen is a…
In a decision of 17 January 2018 (HR-2018-110-A), the Norwegian Supreme Court concludes that trade mark protection covers instances where there is a clear possibility that damage to the functions of a trade mark may occur only after the products have been sold. This is the first decision after joining the EEA in which the…
This case has gone through all instances in the Norwegian court system, with the Norwegian Supreme Court rendering its first decision on colour marks in December 2017. Overall, the courts find that neither purple, nor specific shades of purple, have protection as unregistered trade marks for inhalers for GlaxoSmithKline in Norway. In 1999 GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)…
This is a follow up to the blog post of 4 September, regarding Oslo Municipality’s attempt to obtain trade mark protection for the body of works of art of Norwegian artist Gustav Vigeland. Previously, the EFTA Court concluded that a trade mark consisting of a work of art may contravene accepted principles of morality or…
In April, the Oslo District Court partially relied on EUIPO Guidelines in finding that this trade mark is distinctive (judgment of 11. April 2017, case 16-135037TVI-OTIR/07).The mark had been rejected by the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) and the Board of Appeal as being descriptive and non-distinctive for “ammunition, projectiles and cartridges”. Norway is…
