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:
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 1.2 Conventions and Treaties. 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:
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:
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:
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:
Industrial designs is entitled to copyright protection if the requirements for copyright protection are fulfilled.
To qualify for copyright protection, the following criteria need to be met:
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.
Works created anonymously or pseudonymously also qualify for copyright protection. A publisher can act on behalf of the anonymous author. The term of protection is 70 years from the year the work was made public.
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:
The exclusive rights apply to the work both in its original and altered form, as well as translations and adaptions 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:
There are no distinct rules in Norway on synchronisation rights. A normal synchronisation licence from the copyright holder to use the copyrighted piece is sufficient.
Copyright protection lasts for the author’s lifetime and 70 years after the end of:
The author can terminate their copyright protection for all kinds of works, but the moral rights cannot be abandoned.
Use of symbols such as © to denote that a copyright is protected is not required.
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 its members; eg, TONO, BONO and GRAMO.
Copyright protection in Norway is not subject to registration. Therefore, no copyright register exists in Norway.
See 3.8 Copyright Registration.
See 3.8 Copyright Registration.
See 3.8 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:
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 carries out a search for unregistered trade marks online, in the company register and in the registry for Norwegian Domain Names (NORID).
The Norwegian system does not allow for registration of series marks.
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.
A trade mark registration may be updated or refreshed if the changes are insignificant and do not affect the overall impression of the trade mark. More significant changes require an application for a new trade mark.
Updated and refreshed trade marks must be registered in the Trade Mark Register and then published, to maintain the protection obtained by the registration.
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:
As of 2023, the application fee for registering a trade mark in one class is NOK2900 (approximately EUR260). An additional fee of NOK750 (approximately EUR70) 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.
A prior owner of a trade mark registration may consent to the registration of a trade mark that would otherwise conflict with the prior mark. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and submitting a letter of consent to NIPO. The letter of consent should include information on the holder of the older registration, information on the applicant, and the precise scope of the consent. It must be clearly stated that consent is given to register the trade mark.
Third parties have the right to file an objection to a registration during the registration procedure. There is no requirement that the third party in question has a particular standing or commercial interest in the case. An objection should be in writing, justified and submitted to NIPO. The applicant will be notified by NIPO that an objection has been submitted. Third parties may also file oppositions within three months after the registration of a trade mark.
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 4.9 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 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.
A refusal from NIPO may be appealed by the applicant to the Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights (“Board of Appeal”). The deadline for filing the appeal is two months. The deadline cannot be extended.
The appeal must be in writing and submitted to NIPO no later than two months after information on the refusal was given to the party in question. The appeal must include:
The appeal is subject to a stipulated fee.
A decision by the Board of Appeal may be brought before the ordinary courts.
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 4.12 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.
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.
Opposition to a trade mark registration must be filed based on one or more of the grounds mentioned in 4.12 Refusal of Registration.
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.
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.
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.
Trade Marks
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 4.6 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
Revocation
The registration of a trade mark may be invalidated if the registration contravenes the conditions set out in 4.12 Refusal of Registration.
Cancellation
A trade mark registration may be deleted on the basis of one or more of the following grounds:
Copyrights
See 6.1 Timeframes for Filing Revocation/Cancellation Proceedings.
Trade Marks
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.
In addition, legal action based on the grounds mentioned in 4.12 Refusal of Registration may also be initiated by NIPO.
Copyrights
See 6.1 Timeframes for Filing Revocation/Cancellation Proceedings.
Trade Marks
Revocation or cancellation proceedings may be brought before both NIPO and the civil courts.
Copyrights
See 6.1 Timeframes for Filing Revocation/Cancellation Proceedings.
Trade Marks
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 6.1 Timeframes for Filing Revocation/Cancellation Proceedings.
Trade Marks
It is not possible to amend a trade mark during revocation and cancellation proceedings. However, the list of goods and services may be limited.
Copyrights
See 6.1 Timeframes for Filing Revocation/Cancellation Proceedings.
Trade Marks
Actions involving revocation/cancellation and infringement are heard together by the court.
Copyrights
See 6.1 Timeframes for Filing Revocation/Cancellation Proceedings.
Trade Marks
There are no special procedures to revoke or cancel marks that have been filed fraudulently under the Norwegian system.
Copyrights
See 6.1 Timeframes for Filing Revocation/Cancellation Proceedings.
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 assignment of trade marks.
However, for evidential purposes in case of disputes, it is generally recommended that agreements on assignment are 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:
A licence can be perpetual.
No approval from NIPO is needed for licensing of trade marks.
Trade Marks
During the application process, it is possible to assign an application for a trade mark or grant a licence in relation to it.
Copyright
As copyright protection in Norway is not subject to registration, assignment or licensing of an application is not relevant.
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.
As of the date of this guide, there is no general right for authors and/or their heirs in Norway to recapture transferred rights for copyrighted works. However, there are some specific regulations in place for certain copyright-protected works and agreements.
On 22 November 2023, a consultation paper proposing amendments to the Copyright Act to implement EU Directives 2019/790 and 2019/789 into Norwegian law was issued. The consultation paper contains a proposal for a general right for authors or performers to revoke, either fully or partially, a licence or transfer of rights in cases where there is a lack of exploitation of the work.
Trade marks can be given as a security. According to a new legislation that came into force on 1 March 2023, a registered trade mark can be subject to execution or any other separate enforcement proceedings by creditors.
Copyrights can be given as security only as part of the operating accessories for a company; however, copyrights cannot be pledged separately.
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 trademark 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:
These actions are only prohibited if they induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal copyright infringement.
See 8.2 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.
Trade Marks
The parties to an infringement action are usually the trade mark owner and the alleged infringer. The Trade Marks Act stipulates that a licensee may only bring legal proceedings concerning infringement if the trade mark owner consents, and unless otherwise agreed. However, an exclusive licensee can bring legal actions if the trade mark owner, after receiving notice of the proceedings, does not initiate infringement actions within a reasonable time.
The right to file an infringement action applies to everyone with an established right to a trade mark, either by registration or by use. Possession of a trade mark application alone is also sufficient to pursue infringement, but infringement claims will only succeed if the court finds it likely that the conditions for registration are fulfilled.
Copyright
The Copyright Act does not stipulate who can initiate infringement actions. The necessary parties to an infringement action typically include the copyright owner or their authorised representative and the alleged infringer. It is possible for a third party who is not the copyright owner, but has a legal interest in the copyright, such as a licensee or an exclusive distributor, to file an action for infringement. Such third party must have a legal basis, such as a contractual agreement or an assignment of rights, that grants them the right to enforce copyright and seek remedies for infringement.
Third parties may intervene in copyright or trade mark infringement actions after they have commenced if:
Class actions are permitted for all cases. There are no special regulations for trade mark or copyright cases, and a case may proceed as a class action if the case and the group members meet the general conditions in the Norwegian Dispute Act (NDA).
The main conditions are:
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.
Legal proceedings in trade mark and copyright matters follow the same general regime provided under the NDA.
The writ of summons must be filed to Oslo District Court, which is the mandatory legal venue for most cases concerning trade mark and copyright disputes in Norway. The writ of summons will provide a basis for the defendant to consider the claims and prepare the case, and for the court to hear the case. The summons must state the claim and the outcome the claimant is requesting, the factual and legal grounds upon which the claim is based, and the evidence that will be presented.
The summons may be supplemented with additional claims, arguments and evidence up to two weeks prior to the main hearing, unless the court sets a different date.
The defendant may initiate a lawsuit in response to the pleading (cross-action). If the conditions for a cross-action are met, the lawsuit will proceed as a joint case.
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 EUR22,175 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 270 of the Penal Code.
A party may be subject to criminal liability for counterfeiting pursuant to the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act (see 9.6 Infringement as an Administrative or Criminal Offence). 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 (see 11.5Infringement as an Administrative or Criminal Offence).
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 (see 9.6 Infringement as an Administrative or Criminal Offence).
Apart from Oslo District Court being the mandatory legal venue in most copyright and trademark 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.
Sections 26-5 to 26-8 of the NDA provide mechanisms by which the parties to a civil case can obtain relevant information and evidence from the other party or a third party.
As a starting point, both parties to a case are obliged to make available relevant evidence that the party is in possession of or can obtain. In addition, the parties may request access to evidence that has not already been submitted by the other party. If such a request is not accommodated, the court may order the relevant party or person to comply with the request for access to evidence.
Chapter 28 of the NDA provides mechanisms to secure evidence outside of a trial. Chapter 28 A contains specific remedies for the purpose of obtaining information in intellectual property cases. The court may, at the request of the rights-holder, order the alleged infringer and related persons to disclose the origin and distribution network of the goods or services to which the infringement applies.
The parties may present expert statements or surveys as part of their evidence. Surveys may provide great value as evidence in both copyright and trade mark cases for certain issues, for example, to determine whether or not a trade mark has been established by use and whether a trade mark is well known.
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.
If the defendant has been found guilty of trade mark or copyright infringement, the defendant may be sentenced to fines or imprisonment for up to one year, or to imprisonment for up to three years if there are particularly aggravating circumstances. In assessing whether aggravating circumstances exist, emphasis will be placed on the damages caused to the owner and the owner’s commercial reputation, the gain obtained by the infringer, and the scope and extent of the infringement in general.
These cases are prosecuted under national criminal law and require the rights-holder to file a complaint to the prosecuting authority.
The defendant may argue several defences against trade mark infringement:
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:
Under Section 26 of the Copyright Act, private reproductions are allowed under certain conditions:
The Electronic Commerce Directive (2000/31) is implemented in Norwegian law under the E-Commerce Act and provides liability exemptions under certain conditions for intermediary service providers whose activities are either “mere conduit”, caching or hosting. The exemptions only apply to intermediary service providers that are passive, meaning that the intermediary neither has knowledge of nor control over the information that is transmitted or stored.
As of January 2024, the Digital Services Act ((EU) 2022/2065) has not been implemented into Norwegian law.
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.
Public and certain private libraries, educational establishments, museums and archives are, under Norwegian copyright law, granted a right to make copyrighted works available on certain conditions:
In most instances, with the exception of paper copies, the copy must only be used on the premises of the institution.
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:
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:
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.
Conciliation and settlement negotiations are not mandatory, but the parties are strongly encouraged to investigate the possibility of reaching an amicable settlement before initiating court proceedings. Such negotiations may either take place in private, in the conciliation board or by court mediation.
In addition, the parties may agree to settle the case at any stage during the proceedings, up until the court case is adjourned.
If the parties fail to reach an amicable settlement, arbitration is in principle an alternative dispute resolution method. Mediation and conciliation are not common in IP cases. This is often due to the significant differences between the parties’ positions and the fact that issues related to the validity of registered rights cannot be resolved through arbitration.
In Norway, infringement of and validity of a trade mark shall be handled by the same court. Consequently, issues related to a stay of proceedings typically do not arise.
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.
There are no special provisions concerning the appellate procedure for trade mark and copyright proceedings.
An appeal may be brought against a judgment or an interlocutory order on the grounds of error in the assessment of the facts, error in the application of the law, or error in the procedure upon which the ruling is based. The appeal court tries all the appealed parts of the judgment.
The Supreme Court may either try the case in full, or decide to admit only parts of the judgment for review. Appeal to the Supreme Court is subject to leave.
Trade Marks
The registration of anything likely to be perceived as a natural person’s name, stage name or portrait, requires the prior consent of the owner. Exceptions apply if the name or portrait obviously refers to a person who is long dead.
As the decisive factor is whether the name or portrait is likely to be perceived by the public as referring to a natural person, the main scope of the provision is to protect celebrity names and a person’s right to their own image.
Copyright
The Copyright Act contains a provision regarding the right to one’s own image, stating that a photograph depicting a person cannot be reproduced or publicly displayed without the consent of the person depicted. The provision provides for certain exemptions; eg, when the depiction has current and general interest.
Section 25 of the Marketing Control Act contains a provision on good business practice, which is sometimes invoked as an additional argument/claim in cases related to copyright and trade marks. However, the threshold for invoking this provision in matters regulated by the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, is generally quite high.
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. Please see our Trends and Development Article for further information.
Intermediary service providers are in certain cases exempt from liability; see 10.4 Intermediaries. 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.
Norwegian law does not provide for any special rules or norms regarding trade marks and copyrights used in business.
Decisions From the Norwegian Courts Pertaining to Descriptive Trade Marks
Introduction
Over the past few years, there has been a growing number of cases in Norway where trade marks are being denied registration due to their descriptive nature in relation to the goods and services they are registered for. Interestingly, this occurs even when the same trade mark has been registered by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
To register a trade mark in Norway, it is required that the trade mark is both unique and distinctive in relation to the goods or services it represents. This requirement is outlined in Section 14 of the Norwegian Trade Marks Act, which implements Article 4 number 1 litra c of the EU Trade Mark Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/2436). The trade mark cannot merely describe the product or service, but must be distinctive in order to serve as a guarantee of the commercial origin of the product or service.
Although Norway is not bound by decisions from the EUIPO, these decisions are considered relevant and influential in interpreting Norwegian trade mark law due to their alignment with the EU’s trade mark directive. However, the final determination for the registration of a trade mark in Norway rests with the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) and the Norwegian courts.
In the following, we will present three decisions from Norwegian courts where registration was denied on the grounds of descriptiveness, even though the trade marks were registered within the EUIPO.
The TRUSTSHOP case (LB-2022-64395)
In a decision from the Borgarting Court of Appeal on 11 November 2022, the company Crobocom AS, known for developing solutions such as a self-service refrigerator for use in settings like company canteens, was denied the registration of the name “TRUSTSHOP”. The name was chosen to reflect the trust-based nature of their solution.
Crobocom AS applied for trade mark registration for goods and services in class 11, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43 and 45 on 12 January 2018. This included, among other things, “cooling installations and machines”, “sale of foodstuffs“, “electronic payment services”, “business administration within transport and delivery services” and “business management and business administration”. The trade mark “TRUSTSHOP” was registered in classes 7, 9, 35, 36, 42 and 43 in the UK on 21 August 2020 and in the EU on 16 September 2020. The decisions from the UK and the EUIPO to register the trade marks were not reasoned.
The Borgarting Court of Appeal, in its judgment, found that the word “TRUSTSHOP” was descriptive. The court’s reasoning was that trust is an inherent characteristic in all forms of trade and service provision. In this context, the word “trust” is naturally perceived as a characteristic or quality of the place or service. When combined with a general term such as “shop”, the court concluded that registering such a trade mark would result in an unacceptable monopolisation of common words.
The fact that the trade mark had been registered by the EUIPO was not decisive. Crobocom argued that, ideally, Norwegian trade mark authorities should provide justification for why their assessment differed from the assessment of the EUIPO and the UK. The court responded to this by stating that since neither the EUIPO nor the British trade mark authorities provided justification for their registrations, it would be illogical, in the court’s opinion, to require Norwegian authorities to explain why they arrived at a different conclusion, based on assumptions about the reasoning behind another authority’s registration.
The ZEROVISION case (LB-2022-137934)
In a decision rendered on 9 January 2023, the Borgarting Court of Appeal ruled that the word mark “ZEROVISION” was descriptive for the goods in class 7; “machines that generate artificial smoke” and class 9; “security alarm systems, except for vehicles”.
The applicant, Verisure Sàrl (Verisure), is an international security company that offers smoke cannons as burglary alarms. The name “ZEROVISION” was derived from the fact that the smoke cannons create a foggy environment, impairing the vision of potential burglars.
In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the combination of the words “zero” (indicating zero or null) and “vision” (referring to sight, view, visual acuity, or vision) would be readily understood by the relevant consumer base as implying “zero sight” or “zero vision”. The court further noted that this pairing of words is neither unusual nor surprising. Additionally, it was noted by the court that whether the mark is written as one word or two, it does not introduce any semantic or graphic elements that would alter its meaning beyond what is typically understood in common language usage. Consequently, the trade mark could not be registered for the goods in classes 7 and 9.
Regarding the fact that a parallel trade mark was registered by the EUIPO, the court highlighted that while the application of legal norms should be consistent, this does not necessarily mean that the outcomes of individual cases should always be identical. The court pointed out that this is particularly relevant in situations where the EUIPO’s decisions to register trade marks are not accompanied by their reasoning.
The ELTORQUE case (TOSL-2023-19475)
In the ELTORQUE case, rendered on 7 June 2023, Oslo District Court examined whether “ELTORQUE” was descriptive for goods in classes 7, 8, 9, 35, and 37.
Eltorque AS is a Norwegian company that develops, produces, and sells actuators and control systems for the maritime industry. On 2 November 2020, the company applied to register the word and combined mark “ELTORQUE”, but the registration was denied. Eltorque AS brought the case before Oslo District Court. The trade mark was registered by the EUIPO, as well as in the UK, Russia, Singapore, and Turkey.
The court referred to “eltorque” as a combination of “el” and “torque”, where “el” is a common indication of something being powered by electricity, and where “torque” refers to rotational force. The court thus emphasised that the average consumer of such goods and services would understand “eltorque” to mean “electric torque”, or more figuratively, “rotates by means of electric power”.
In light of this, the District Court concluded that both the word mark and the combined mark ELTORQUE was descriptive for “engines for vehicles, vessels, and machines”, “electric motors”, “steering engines”, “power mechanisms”, and “couplings and devices for power transmission” in class 7, as well as “valves and actuators”, “software for controlling engine parts”, “software for controlling actuators”, and “software for controlling valves” in class 9.
While the District Court acknowledged that there was no evidence indicating that the trade marks would be perceived differently in Norway compared to the EU, it did not consider the registrations of the trade marks by the EUIPO as decisive. The District Court briefly referenced the statements made by the Court of Appeal in the two above-mentioned cases, and reiterated that the decisions of the EUIPO lacked accompanying reasoning.
Statistics From the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) for 2023
According to statistics from NIPO, there has been a reduction of 10% in the number of trade mark applications in 2023 compared to the previous year. A total of 15,962 applications were received in 2023. Of these, 12,600 were submitted by foreign applicants and only 3,304 by Norwegian residents.
As of 4 January 2024, there are 246,022 trade marks in force in Norway and 11,316 trade mark applications are still pending.
Copyright
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
AI has become a prominent topic in Norwegian copyright discussions. While there have been no specific copyright decisions or pending litigations related to AI in Norway yet, the impact of AI on Norwegian copyright law is expected to affect future development in this field.
Section 3 of the Norwegian Copyright Act grants copyright holders the exclusive rights to reproduce their works and make them publicly available. In a digital context, this primarily means that copyright holders have the sole right to create digital copies of their work and share them online.
The use of AI systems presents various challenges to these exclusive rights, particularly concerning AI training and the utilisation of AI-generated results. The key issues being debated in Norway concern the use of copyrighted works as data for training AI (input) and the determination of ownership rights to AI-generated work (output).
Use of copyrighted works as training data (input)
AI systems require training to perform specific tasks, and this training process involves feeding data into the system as input. Depending on the AI system’s specific tasks and objectives, this data may be sourced from online resources or pre-organised data collections, commonly known as datasets.
During the training process, temporary copies of text and data are stored in the memory of the AI system. If this data includes copyrighted works, the temporary reproduction of such works by AI systems falls under the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, as outlined in Section 3 of the Norwegian Copyright Act. Without the consent of the copyright holder, this temporary reproduction would constitute copyright infringement. Additionally, extracting data from protected databases may also infringe upon the exclusive rights to databases under Section 24 of the Norwegian Copyright Act.
As AI systems often rely on vast amounts of data, it becomes challenging for AI developers to identify and obtain consent from each individual copyright holder to the works used as training data. The extraction of text and data, known as data mining, is crucial for the development of effective AI systems.
The European Union (EU) has already adopted rules that could allow such activity to proceed without the need for consent from the rights-holders of the copyrighted works involved in text and data mining. Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive) includes provisions that exempt text and data mining from copyright restrictions. These rules are generally expected to apply to the use of works in training generative AI.
Article 3 of the DSM Directive entails that text and data mining, involving the reproduction of copyrighted works, will be legal if conducted for scientific research purposes and if initial access to the works is legal. However, this exemption will have little relevance for text and data mining conducted with the intention of commercialising an AI service.
On the other hand, Article 4 of the DSM Directive provides an exemption that allows for text and data mining conducted for commercial purposes to be legal under certain conditions. These conditions include the requirement that initial access to the copyrighted works is legal, the reproduction of the works is not stored longer than necessary for the mining process, and the rights-holder has not expressly reserved against such data mining.
The inclusion of Article 4 simplifies the training of AI systems for developers, as individual consent is not required to collect input data. However, copyright holders still have the ability to reserve their rights against the use of their works for text and data mining, provided that the reservation is made in a sufficient manner. For works openly available on the internet, the directive specifies that reservation must be made in a machine-readable format, for example in metadata that is linked to the digital work, and in terms and conditions for use on the website where the work is available.
By allowing copyright holders to reserve their rights, Article 4 of the DSM Directive will not significantly restrict copyright. It does, however, place the responsibility on copyright holders to clarify whether consent is given to use their works in text and data mining. Copyright holders, and especially copyright holders who have or manage rights to larger catalogues of works, can thus still be in a position to negotiate remuneration for granting consent to text and data mining.
The process of implementing the DMS directive in Norway is already underway, with proposed amendments to the Copyright Act outlined in the Ministry of Culture and Equality’s consultation document of 22 November 2023. The proposed amendments include the rules set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the DSM Directive. Until these provisions are fully implemented in Norway, the current Norwegian Copyright Act does not permit the reproduction of copyrighted works without explicit consent from the rights-holder.
Who holds the copyright to AI-generated content (output)?
AI systems have the ability to generate a variety of different works such as texts (articles, stories, poems), source code, images and music. The question of whether these AI-generated results can be copyrighted, and if so, who holds the copyright, has been a topic of discussion in Norway.
According to Section 2 of the Norwegian Copyright Act, a work must exhibit “original and individual creative effort” to be protected by copyright. This requirement implies that the work must be created by a human. Therefore, the general perception in Norway has been that the AI system itself cannot be considered the author of a work, even if the generated result is creative and original, rather than a mere modification or copy of existing works.
The key question is whether users can claim copyright for works produced with the assistance of an AI system. In many cases, AI serves as a tool that incorporates varying degrees of user creativity. For example, AI systems like Sony’s Flow Machines allow users to compose new songs by utilising machine learning to analyse existing music and incorporate user preferences, such as choice of instruments and tempo. Similarly, ChatGPT can be directed to generate articles, poems, and stories. During this process, users can guide and instruct ChatGPT to modify and adapt elements like plot, content, and style.
The prevailing view in Norway seems to be that works created with the help of AI systems can be protected by copyright, as long as the result is a product of the user’s own intellectual creation.
However, the extent of human “input” or creative choices required for a work to be protected by copyright remains somewhat unclear. Users do not have complete control over how AI systems interpret instructions and generate content. Ultimately, it is the AI system that determines the final implementation of these instructions. This raises the question of how much human involvement is necessary for AI-generated content to be copyrighted under Norwegian law. As this area continues to develop, further clarification may be needed.
Platform liability
In addition to the previously mentioned modifications to the Norwegian Copyright Act concerning AI, the Ministry of Culture and Equality has proposed several other changes to the Act in order to implement the DSM Directive. One notable change is the introduction of platform liability, as outlined in Article 17 of the DSM Directive.
Article 17 imposes copyright liability on providers of online content-sharing service providers, which are platforms primarily designed to store and provide public access to a substantial amount of copyright-protected content uploaded by their users. Examples of such service providers include YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook.
According to these rules, the providers of these services are considered, from a copyright perspective, to be making copyrighted content available to the public when they facilitate public access to such material uploaded by their users. As a result, the service provider must ensure that they have obtained consent from the rights-holder to use their work on the platform.
Under certain conditions, the service provider may be exempt from liability if they have made their best effort to obtain permission from the rights-holders and have promptly removed infringing content upon receiving notice from rights-holders about unauthorised use (a “notice and take down” obligation).