Trade Marks & Copyright 2025 Comparisons

Trade mark rights are governed by the Norwegian Trade Marks Act (Act No 8 of 26 March 2010), while copyrights are governed by the Norwegian Copyright Act (Act No 40 of 15 June 2018). In addition, preparatory works and case law, in particular the Supreme Court precedents, elaborate on and interpret the statutory provisions in the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. 

Norway is a part of the European Economic Area (EEA), and is thus required to harmonise most major parts of its legislation with EU law. Due to the EEA Agreement, Norway has implemented several of the EU directives relating to trade marks and copyright into its national law. Accordingly, case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) carries significant weight when interpreting the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act.

Norway is a member of the following international treaties regarding trade marks and copyright: 

• Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks; 
• Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property;
• Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trade Marks;
• Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks; 
• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement);
• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, revised 1971;
• Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print-disabled;
• Universal Copyright Convention, revised 1971; and
• Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations.

Under Norwegian law, treaties are not self-executing and only take effect when and to the extent they are implemented in national legislation.

The rights of foreign trade mark or copyright holders are governed by the same laws, conventions and treaties as mentioned in 1.1 Governing Law and above. Under Norwegian law, foreign trade mark and copyright holders have the same rights as Norwegians (National treatment).

Different types of trade marks are recognised in Norway, including word marks, figurative marks, combined marks, shape marks, position marks, pattern marks, colour marks, sound marks, motion marks, multimedia marks and hologram marks.

Collective marks and guarantee or certification marks may also be registered. With a collective mark, a society or other organisation acquires an exclusive right for its members to use a trade mark for goods or services in an industrial or commercial undertaking.

As for the guarantee or certification marks, these are applicable to a public authority, foundation, company or other organisation that establishes standards for, or conducts testing on, goods or services. The mentioned organisations may acquire an exclusive right to use a trade mark for such goods or services to which the standards or the testing apply.

There are no statutory trade marks under Norwegian law.

Marks that are famous outside Norway, but are not yet in use in the country or registered in the Trade Mark Register, are not automatically protected as a trade mark in Norway. To obtain protection, the trade mark must be considered well known as someone’s trade mark by the relevant consumers in Norway.

To be registered, a trade mark must consist of a sign that can be protected, as mentioned in 2.1 Types of Trade Marks, and that can be represented in the Trade Mark Register in such a way that the authorities and the public can clearly and distinctly determine the subject matter of the protection. Further, it must possess distinctiveness, meaning that it must be distinctive and express something more than the characteristics or qualities of the goods or services it is registered for. 

A trade mark cannot be registered if it consists solely, or with only insignificant changes or additions, of signs or indications that:

• indicate the nature, quality, quantity, purpose, value, or geographical origin of the goods or services, the time of production of the goods, or the performance of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or services; or
• in ordinary language or according to fair and established business practices, constitute customary designations for the goods or services.

A trade mark right in Norway has the effect that no one, without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark right, may use in the course of trade, in relation to goods or services:

• any sign that is identical with the trade mark for goods or services for which the trade mark is protected; or
• any sign that is identical with or similar to the trade mark for identical or similar goods or services, if there exists a likelihood of confusion, such as if the use of the sign may give the impression that there is a link between the sign and the trade mark.

This right is outlined in Section 4 of the Trade Marks Act and persists throughout the term of a mark.

To establish a trade mark infringement, the trade mark owner must prove that the defendant has used:

• an identical sign for goods or services for which the trade mark is protected; or
• a sign that is identical or similar to the trade mark for identical or similar goods or services, if there exists a likelihood of confusion.

The defendant may, however, argue in their defence that the use of the sign has only been descriptive. Purely descriptive use does not constitute a trade mark infringement.

In Norway there are no requirements to use symbols such as “®” or “TM” to denote that a trade mark is protected. This is optional, and has no impact on the rights of the trade mark owner.

In Norway, intellectual property rights are not mutually exclusive, and a trade mark may be protected by several types of intellectual property rights. For example, a trade mark logo may be protected by both trade mark law and copyright law.

If a trade mark constitutes a surname, no specific or different rule applies. The trade mark is valid, provided it does not cause prejudice to a person who bears the surname in question.

The following works are eligible for copyright protection in Norway according to Section 2 of the Copyright Act:

• texts of all forms, including works of fiction and non-fiction;
• oral presentations;
• theatrical compositions, encompassing dramatic, music-dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and radio dramas;
• musical compositions, whether with or without accompanying lyrics;
• cinematic productions;
• photographic creations;
• visual arts, such as paintings, drawings, graphics, and comparable forms;
• sculptures of diverse types;
• architectural works, comprising drawings, models, and the actual work;
• tapestries and articles of fine and applied arts and industrial design, encompassing both the prototype and the finalised work;
• maps, as well as drawings and graphic and plastic representations of a scientific or technical nature;
• computer programs; and
• translations and other adaptations of previously enumerated works.

Industrial designs are entitled to copyright protection if the requirements for copyright protection are fulfilled.

To qualify for copyright protection, the following criteria need to be met:

• The work must express an original and individual creative effort. This means that the work needs to reflect the personality of its author, as an expression of their free and creative choices.
• The work must be identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity, although not necessarily in permanent form.

According to Section 2 of the Copyright Act, the one who creates the work is defined as the author.

The author must be one or more physical persons. Works created by artificial intelligence are not subject to copyright, but works created merely with the help of artificial intelligence, can qualify for copyright protection, provided that they fulfil the criterion of originality.

Copyright for a work can be licensed or transferred from the author to another party, including legal entities. For employees, there is a presumption that copyrights are transferred to their employer, but only if and to the extent that the transfer is fair and necessary to fulfil the purpose of the employment contract.

Joint authorship arises when several persons, through co-operation, have each given an original contribution to the work, provided that each person’s contribution cannot be separated as independent works. For the first publication of the work, consent from all authors is required unless they have explicitly or implicitly consented in advance. The same applies to the publication of the work in a different manner or form than before. However, each author can demand or give consent for a new publication in the same manner.

The rights granted to copyright owners are stipulated in Section 3 of the Copyright Act. The provision grants copyright owners an exclusive right to produce permanent and temporary copies of the work in all forms and to make the work available to the public, where the latter implies:

• offering the work for sale or otherwise distributing it to the public;
• publicly displaying copies of the work without the use of technical aids;
• publicly performing the work; or
• transmitting the work, wired or wireless, to the public.

The exclusive rights apply to the work both in its original and altered form, as well as translations and adaptations in the same or a different format. Further, all rights granted to copyright owners persist throughout the term of a copyright.

The following moral rights are recognised in Norwegian copyright law:

• right of attribution;
• right of integrity;
• right to be notified before destruction of the original copy of the work, where reasonable; and
• right to access the original copy of the work, where reasonable.

Copyright protection lasts for the author’s lifetime and 70 years after the end of:

• the author’s year of death for works with a single author;
• the year of death of the longest-living co-author for joint works;
• the year of death of the longest-living among the main director, author of the film script, dialogue writer, and composer of music created for the purpose of film production for cinematographic works; or
• the year of death of the longest-living among the lyricist and composer for musical works where both the lyrics and music are created for the work.

The author can terminate their copyright protection for all kinds of works, but the moral rights cannot be abandoned.

Collective rights management in Norway is governed by a separate act known as the Norwegian Collective Management Act (Act No 49 of 28 May 2021), which implements the provisions of EU Directive 2014/26 into Norwegian law. There are several different collective rights management organisations in Norway that collect royalties on behalf of their members; eg, TONO, BONO and GRAMO.

Copyright protection in Norway is not subject to registration. Therefore, no copyright register exists in Norway.

Use of symbols such as © to denote that a copyright is protected is not required.

See 3.7 Copyright Registration.

See 3.7 Copyright Registration.

Intellectual property rights are not mutually exclusive, and a copyright may be protected by several types of intellectual property rights. A copyright-protected work may also qualify for protection as a trade mark, provided it satisfies the legal criteria outlined in the Trade Mark Act.

A trade mark holder can achieve trade mark protection in two ways:

• through registration in the Trade Mark Register or by international registration with effect in Norway; or
• by use of the trade mark (a trade mark right is considered established by use when the trade mark is well known in the circle of trade in Norway for the relevant goods and services as someone’s sign).

The Norwegian system provides equal protection for registered trade marks and trade marks that obtain protection through use. However, as long-term extensive and intensive use is required to achieve protection through use, registration is often the more practical alternative. In addition, trade mark protection established by use may be limited to a part of the country, while registration provides nationwide protection.

The Trade Mark Register is administered by the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO). NIPO provides a database that is publicly available online and that contains all marks applied for, registered or cancelled.

Before filing a trade mark application, it is recommended to carry out a search for prior trade marks in the Trade Mark Register, to assess whether others own the right to an identical or similar trade mark. For a fee, NIPO can also conduct a preliminary search that covers registered trade marks and applications for such trade marks. In addition, it is recommended that the applicant carry out a search for unregistered trade marks online, in the company register and in the registry for Norwegian Domain Names (NORID).

The term of registration is ten years from the date of filing the application. Thereafter, the registration may be renewed for ten years at a time, on an ongoing basis.

A request for renewal of a trade mark must be in writing and filed with NIPO. The request may be filed no earlier than one year before the registration period expires.

The renewal of the trade mark is subject to a stipulated fee. Since renewing the right is voluntary, NIPO does not invoice the renewal fee. To avoid an additional fee, the request for renewal must be filed and the renewal fee paid before the registration period expires. If the trade mark owner fails to do so, and does not pay the renewal fee and late payment fee within the final deadline of six months after the expiry date, the trade mark registration will expire.

An application for registration of a trade mark may be filed online on NIPO’s website. Any natural or legal person can file an application. The application must include:

• the name and address of the applicant;
• a representation of the trade mark; and
• a list of the goods and services in respect of which the registration is requested (the goods and services may be included in several classes).

As of 2023, the application fee for registering a trade mark in one class is NOK3800 (approximately EUR325). An additional fee of NOK1000 (approximately EUR85) is applicable for each extra class.

Foreign applicants are not required to appoint and be represented by an attorney licensed to practice in Norway.

There is no requirement that the trade mark has been used before the registration is issued.

During the application process, NIPO automatically examines whether the trade mark applied for infringes any previously registered trade marks or trade mark applications. If the owner of an unregistered trade mark or a company name raises objections, NIPO will also consider such objections, but NIPO will not conduct a search to reveal such conflicting rights.

The Norwegian system allows applicants to make insignificant changes to an application for a trade mark registration during the process of registration, provided that the changes do not affect the overall impression of the trade mark. The list of goods and services applied for cannot be extended, but may be limited.

It is possible to divide a trade mark application into several applications. The applicant will have to pay a stipulated fee for each new application. A divisional application must be filed before the original application is processed and cannot include goods and services that were not included in the original application.

When requesting a division, the applicant must provide the original application number and information on the goods and services, along with their associated class numbers, that were included in the original application and are to be included in the new application.

A request for division must contain the original application number and information on the goods and services, accompanied by the associated class numbers included in the original application that are to be included in the new application.

See 4.7 Revocation, Change, Amendment or Correction of an Application.

A trade mark application may be denied registration by NIPO on a number of grounds. The most relevant grounds for refusal are:

• the formal requirements are not met;
• lack of distinctiveness;
• the trade mark is liable to be confused with another trade mark, business name or business sign;
• the trade mark is misleading;
• the trade mark is offensive or contrary to law or public order;
• there is a danger of deceiving the public;
• the trade mark contains escutcheons or other symbols/flags without authorisation;
• the trade mark contains something that is liable to be perceived as another person’s name, stage name or portrait; and/or
• the trade mark contains a geographical origin for wine or liquor.

The applicant may overcome an objection raised by NIPO by rectifying the deficiencies pointed out within a reasonable time limit stipulated by NIPO.

If the applicant has not commented on or rectified the deficiencies before the time limit expires, the application will be rejected.

Norway participates in the Madrid system. For an international registration to take effect in Norway, the general requirements for registration in Norway must be met (see 4.10 Refusal of Registration). NIPO is the relevant authority in cases concerning international registrations of trade marks and will conduct the examination process. If the requirements for registration are not met, NIPO will refuse, in full or in part, to grant effect to the international registration in Norway.

Trade Marks

Opposition

Opposition to a trade mark registration must be submitted to NIPO within three months after the date of publication of the registration. It is not possible for a potential opponent to request extensions of time to file an opposition. There is no cooling-off period under the Norwegian system.

Revocation/cancellation

Cancellation and revocation proceedings may be conducted by way of an administrative review by NIPO. A request for an administrative review may be made when the opposition time limit has expired, and any opposition proceedings have been settled with a final decision from NIPO.

Revocation proceedings on the grounds of lack of genuine use can be filed five years after the registration date at the earliest (see 4.5 Use in Commerce Prior to Registration). All other invalidation actions can be filed without any specific time limit.

Copyrights

Copyright protection in Norway is not subject to registration. It will therefore not be possible to file administrative revocation or cancellation actions of copyrights.

Trade Marks

Opposition and revocation

Opposition and revocation to a trade mark registration must be filed based on one or more of the grounds mentioned in 4.10 Refusal of Registration.

Cancellation

A trade mark registration may be deleted on the basis of one or more of the following grounds:

• the trade mark has become contrary to law or public order or is liable to cause offence;
• the trade mark has become the general designation for goods or services of the type for which it is registered due to the trade mark holder’s actions or passivity;
• the trade mark has become liable to deceive due to use by the trade mark owner or someone with their consent;
• notification has not been made of amendments to the regulations for the use of a collective mark, or the collective mark has been used in contravention of the regulations filed, without the trade mark holder having taken steps to prevent such use within a reasonable time; or
• the trade mark holder has not made actual use of the trade mark within five years after a final decision on registration was made, or the use has been discontinued for five consecutive years.

Copyrights

See 5.1 Timeframes for Filing an Opposition or Cancellation.

Trade Marks

Opposition

Any natural or legal person can file an opposition. The opponent does not need to be the owner of a trade mark or a trade mark registration to file an opposition, or have any commercial interests at stake. Representation by an attorney is not mandatory. There are no office fees. The attorney fees will vary a lot, but will normally be in the range of EUR3,000 to EUR7,000.

Revocation/cancellation

A revocation or cancellation proceeding may be initiated by any person with a legal interest in the matter. However, this is usually only the owner of a prior trade mark or of a previous registration, or a licensee who is considered to have a legal interest in the matter when the proceedings are initiated, due to prior rights. A fee of approximately EUR240 must be paid to initiate revocation or cancellation proceedings.

In addition, legal action based on the grounds mentioned in 4.10 Refusal of Registration may also be initiated by NIPO.

Copyrights

See 5.1 Timeframes for Filing an Opposition or Cancellation.

Trade Marks

Opposition

When an opposition is submitted, NIPO will send the opposition to the owner of the trade mark registration, who is entitled to file a counter statement. NIPO will then determine whether further statements by the parties are needed before the opposition is decided.

The opposition is normally processed without an oral hearing, and a final decision is usually made within four months after both parties have presented their comments and opinions.

Revocation/cancellation

Revocation or cancellation proceedings may be brought before both NIPO and the civil courts.

A registered trade mark may be considered completely or partially invalid depending on whether the legal grounds for revocation or cancellation apply to all or just some of the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered.

Copyrights

See 5.1 Timeframes for Filing an Opposition or Cancellation.

The losing party may challenge NIPO’s decision by filing an appeal to the Board of Appeal within two months of the decision being served upon the respective party. This deadline cannot be extended.

The parties may request oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal; this request is likely to be accepted if the Board of Appeal finds this suitable for the case at hand.

A decision from the Board of Appeal can be appealed to the Oslo District Court.

It is not possible to amend a trade mark in revocation and cancellation proceedings. However, the list of goods and services may be limited.

Actions involving revocation/cancellation and infringement may be heard together by the court.

There are no special procedures to revoke or cancel trade marks that have been filed fraudulently under the Norwegian system.

There are no formal requirements or specific procedures that apply to the assignment of trade marks or copyright. Partial assignments of trade marks or copyrights are permitted.

No approval from the NIPO is required for the assignment of trade marks. 

However, for evidential purposes in case of disputes, it is generally recommended that agreements on assignment be concluded in writing.

Trade marks and copyrights are transmissible upon death.

There are no formal requirements or specific procedures that apply to the licensing of trade marks or copyright in Norway.

However, for evidential purposes and for the owner to precisely identify the extent and scope of the licence, it is generally recommended to conclude licence agreements in writing.

Different types of licences may be granted:

• exclusive licences;
• non-exclusive licences;
• sole licences; and
• a combination of these types of licences.

A licence can be perpetual.

No approval from NIPO is needed for licensing of trade marks.

Trade Marks

The Trade Marks Act stipulates that if the right to a registered trade mark has been assigned to another person, this can be registered in the Trade Mark Register and be published at the request of one of the parties.

The same applies to a licence for a trade mark that has been registered or for which an application for registration has been filed. The same applies if a registered licence has been assigned or lapsed.

If an assignment or licence is not registered, it may still be valid between the parties involved. However, in case of a conflict, registered assignments/licences generally have priority over unregistered ones. In conflicts between registered assignments/licences, rights for which the NIPO has received the registration request shall prevail over rights for which no request for registration has been received by the same date or earlier.

Copyright

As copyright protection in Norway is not subject to registration, registration or recording of an assignment or licence is not relevant.

There is no specific statute that requires trade mark or copyright claims to be brought within a specific period of time. In extraordinary circumstances, trade mark and copyright infringement claims may be subject to equitable defences such as laches when there has been an unreasonable delay in asserting a legal right.

Different legal claims available to a trade mark or copyright owner in Norway to pursue infringement include direct infringement, contributory infringement and vicarious infringement. Available claims are the same regardless of whether the mark is registered or not. Copyrights are not registerable in Norway.

Trade mark infringement occurs when a third party uses an identical or similar mark in relation to identical or similar goods or services, causing a likelihood of confusion. To make a successful claim, the trade mark owner must prove ownership of a valid mark, likelihood of confusion, and unauthorised use. Dilution of the trade mark is not in itself enough to pursue infringement, unless the use also fulfils the standard conditions for infringement. A trade mark owner may pursue cybersquatting with a complaint to the Norwegian Domain Complaints Board (Domeneklagenemnda), claiming transfer or deletion.

Copyright infringement involves the unauthorised use of copyrighted works, including reproduction, distribution, or public performance without permission. To establish a successful claim, the copyright owner must prove ownership of a valid copyright, copying of the protected work, and substantial similarity between the original work and the alleged infringing work. Other copyright claims may encompass violations of moral rights and neighbouring rights.

There is no definition of copyright management information under Norwegian law. Without the copyright holder’s consent, it is prohibited to:

• remove or alter electronic copyright management information added by the copyright holder to a protected work, whether included in a copy or associated with making the work available to the public; or
• to introduce a copy for distribution, trade, or otherwise make a protected work available to the public where electronic copyright management information has been removed or altered.

These actions are only prohibited if they induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal copyright infringement.

See 7.2 Legal Claims for Infringement Lawsuits and Their Standards regarding the factors that must be considered when determining whether the use of trade mark or copyright constitutes infringement.

There are no prerequisites that need to be undertaken before bringing an infringement action before Norwegian courts. However, it is customary to issue a warning letter to the person(s) or legal entity against whom action may be brought, with information about the claim and the grounds for the claim.

The first instance in most trade mark or copyright cases (eg, all cases related to infringement) is the Oslo District Court. The district court’s judgment may be appealed to the Borgarting Court of Appeal and after that, possibly, to the Supreme Court.

The costs incurred before filing a trade mark or copyright lawsuit can vary greatly depending on the scope and complexity of the case, but will normally be in the range of EUR2,000 to EUR10,000.

The parties may choose to be represented by a lawyer, or they can represent themselves. The latter is, however, unusual.

Foreign trade mark and copyright owners may bring infringement claims in Norway. The owner’s mark or work does not have to be registered in Norway.

A defendant may file an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, substantiating the reasons why an alleged infringement does not exist. Such an action may be filed with no prerequisites or formalities.

The Remuneration Board is a Norwegian board tasked with handling disputes regarding remuneration under the Copyright Act. The board can issue a prohibition on further use of copyrighted works if someone liable for remuneration fails to pay for the use in accordance with an agreement or as stipulated by the Copyright Act.

Court cases concerning economic interests with a claim below NOK250,000 (approximately EUR21,230 are subject to a simplified small claims procedure in the district courts.

The courts are not bound by NIPO’s decisions, and the court may fully and freely review the matter in its entirety.

There is no prevailing definition of “counterfeiting” in Norway. However, counterfeiting will generally be perceived as referring to the manufacturing of fake versions of original products, which often involves a violation of intellectual property rights such as trade mark rights or copyrights. Acts of counterfeiting can thus be sanctioned pursuant to the general provisions of the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act. In addition, counterfeiting can, under certain conditions, constitute fraud under Section 371 of the Penal Code.

A party may be subject to criminal liability for counterfeiting pursuant to the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act. Counterfeiting that falls within the scope of Section 371 of the Penal Code, is punishable by fines or imprisonment for up to two years. 

Counterfeit products may be subject to seizure or destruction by the customs authorities.

There are no specific provisions relating to bootlegging under Norwegian law. However, bootlegging is generally perceived as the distribution of a recording of audio or film, without the permission of the right-holder. Such acts are sanctionable pursuant to the general provisions of the Copyright Act. Bootlegging may be subject to fines or imprisonment pursuant to the general provisions of the Copyright Act.

Apart from Oslo District Court being the mandatory legal venue in most copyright and trade mark cases, there are no special procedural provisions for trade mark and copyright proceedings, and the standard civil procedures apply. The case is determined by legal and, in some cases, also supplemented with technical judges.

Both the parties and the court may submit proposals for the appointment of technical judges. In the end, the court decides who will be appointed.

Registered and unregistered trade marks enjoy the same protection under Norwegian law. As the court is not bound by NIPO’s decisions, holding a trade mark registration only gives an assumption of a right; ie, that the mark is valid and not infringing.

To maintain the protection, trade marks must be used within five years after the date of registration. The same applies where use has been discontinued for five years. In case of non-use/discontinuation, the registration may be deleted, unless there are reasonable grounds for the non-use/discontinuation of the mark.

Copyrights cannot be registered in Norway.

The costs of bringing an infringement action to a conclusion in the first instance will normally be in the range of EUR30,000 to EUR150,000, depending on the scope and complexity of the case. 

The defendant may argue several defences against trade mark infringement:

• no likelihood of confusion;
• an earlier right to use the sign exists;
• the sign is used in a descriptive or informative manner;
• violation of the right to use a personal name or a geographical origin;
• the trade mark owner has not used the trade mark within five years of registration;
• the trade mark has become generic;
• the use of the trade mark has been tolerated by the trade mark owner (“accepted use”); or
• the trade mark must be declared invalid.

Instead of a fair use doctrine, the Copyright Act provides an explicit list of exceptions and limitations to copyrights. The most important exceptions and limitations are:

• certain temporary, technical acts of reproduction;
• parodies and satire if they are deemed an independent work;
• private copying on certain conditions;
• exhausted copyrights (see 9.3 Exhaustion);
• exhibition of works published or copies sold by the author;
• quotation of published work in accordance with good practice and to the extent required for that purpose;
• use by the press when related to current topics, in accordance with good practice and as required for that purpose;
• use for educational purposes on certain conditions; or
• use in libraries and archives on certain conditions.

Trade Marks

Under Norwegian law, once goods bearing a trade mark are put on the EEA market by the owner of the mark or with the owner’s consent, the owner is no longer entitled to oppose the use of the trade mark within the EEA territory for the goods actually put on the market (exhaustion). 

However, this does not apply if the owner has legitimate reasons to oppose further commercialisation of the goods, such as if the goods in question have been altered or modified after being placed on the market.

Copyright

If a copy of a work is sold or otherwise assigned within the EU/EEA with the consent of the copyright holder, the rights-holder cannot oppose further distribution of the copy to the public. If the copy is sold/assigned outside the EU/EEA, the copy may be acquired for private use or further distributed through loan or rental.

The above exhaustion doctrine does not, with the exception of buildings and objects of use, grant access to rental. Further, the exhaustion doctrine does not grant access to the lending of a machine-readable copy of a computer program. 

The trade mark or copyright owner may claim a preliminary injunction if the defendant’s conduct makes it necessary to provisionally secure the claim, or if it is necessary to avert considerable loss or inconvenience. To obtain a preliminary injunction, the trade mark or copyright owner must substantiate their claim and the urgency of the matter. Injunctive relief cannot be granted if the harm or inconvenience caused to the defendant is clearly disproportionate to the interest the plaintiff has in the injunction being granted.

The judge does not have discretion with regards to ordering remedies, but is bound by the statement of claims.

A preliminary injunction may in general involve a property being removed from the defendant’s possession and placed under custody or administration. In addition, the NDA contains specific provisions concerning IP matters, stipulating that the court may decide that the customs authorities shall detain goods under their control when the import or export of the goods would constitute an infringement of an intellectual property right.

The court may decide that the plaintiff, as a condition for the enforcement of the injunction, shall provide a bond/security as determined by the court for possible compensation to the defendant if it is later determined that the injunction was wrongfully granted. The court has discretion in determining the amount of the bond/security.

If the infringement has been committed with intent or through negligence, the trade mark or copyright owner is entitled to claim damages or compensation from the infringer. The damages or compensation will be determined based on which of the following alternatives is most favourable to the trade mark owner:

• compensation corresponding to a reasonable licence fee for the exploitation, as well as damages for any loss resulting from the infringement that would not have arisen in connection with licensing;
• damages for any loss resulting from the infringement;
• compensation corresponding to the profit/gain obtained by the infringement; or
• compensation corresponding to twice the amount of a reasonable licence fee for infringement committed intentionally or due to gross negligence.

For infringements that have occurred in good faith, the infringer, to the extent that this is not unreasonable, has to pay compensation equivalent to a reasonable fee for the use or the profit obtained from the infringement.

The judge does not have discretion with regard to ordering remedies, but is bound by the statement of claims.

The winning party is at the outset entitled to full compensation for their legal costs from the losing party, provided that the winning party has claimed to be awarded such costs. In theory, there is no limit as to the amount that may be awarded. However, there is a practical limitation in the fact that the party may only be awarded legal costs that are considered reasonable and necessary. What is considered reasonable and necessary depends on the extent, and significance, of the case.

In order to be compensated, the party must have won the case either fully or significantly. If neither party has won the case in full, the judge may decide that the parties shall bear their own legal costs.

The court can also exempt the losing party from liability for legal costs in whole or in part if the court finds that compelling grounds justify exemption. In this respect, the court will, in particular, take into account whether:

• there was a justified cause to have the case heard because the case was doubtful or because the evidence was clarified only after action was brought;
• the winning party can be reproached for bringing the action or the party rejected a reasonable offer of settlement; or
• the case is important to the welfare of the party and the relative strength of the parties justifies exemption.

If there is a risk in staying, the court may grant temporary detention or injunctions without prior oral hearings and notice to the defendant. Generally, the condition will be fulfilled where there is a risk that the main claim cannot otherwise be secured.

The court may decide, as a preliminary injunction, that the customs authorities must withhold goods that are in their possession if the import or export of the goods will constitute an infringement of intellectual property (including both trade mark rights and copyrights).

In addition, the trade mark or copyright owner may apply for the customs authorities to detain goods in their possession, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the import or export of the goods will constitute an infringement of an intellectual property right. This application must include documentation of the intellectual property rights to which the application applies, and information that makes it possible to identify both authentic and counterfeit goods. The trade mark or copyright owner can also request destruction by the customs authorities under certain conditions. The applicant must assume responsibility for costs incurred by the customs authorities in connection with the storage, examination and destruction of goods, etc.

Trade mark or copyright infringement decisions can be appealed. The first instance court’s decisions (tingretten) may be appealed to the regional appeal court (lagmannsretten). The judgment of the regional appeal court may be appealed to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett). A judgment must be appealed no later than one month after the notice of judgment.

As a starting point, the appellate hearing must be set for a time that is no later than six months after the filing of the appeal. However, in practice, this usually takes longer, depending on the court’s current capacity. Pursuant to the NDA, the judgment must be rendered within four weeks after the closing of the main hearing. This deadline may, however, be extended.

In Norway, questions surrounding AI, especially concerning who owns generative AI outputs and what constitutes infringement within the area of copyright, have sparked considerable debate. There have not been any landmark copyright decisions or pending litigations pertaining to AI in Norway.

Norway recently signed the Council of Europe Convention on Artificial Intelligence, which is the first global legally binding instrument for the regulation of AI. Given that Norwegian copyright is regulated by the Copyright Act, which implements EU directives on copyright, EU legal acts like the convention and the upcoming implementation of the EU AI Act into Norwegian law will likely influence how Norway addresses issues of ownership and infringement of intellectual property rights related to AI-generated works.

While clarifications are expected to come in the future, it is still unclear who owns AI-generated outputs and what constitutes copyright infringement in this context under Norwegian law.

Intermediary service providers are, in certain cases, exempt from liability. The liability exemption for hosting providers only applies as long as the provider has no actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, upon obtaining such knowledge, acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information.

In accordance with Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive (2001/29), Norway has implemented provisions giving rights-holders a possibility to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or a related right. The injunction can only be imposed by the courts after a request from the rights-holder.