JURISDICTION REPORT: NORWAY
OF MODELS AND MAKES
Steinar Lie Bryn Aarflot
In 1999, the Norwegian Intellectual Property Office’s (NIPO) Appeal Board refused the mark L400 for class 12 goods (vehicles) in a decision that was initially ignored by NIPO legal advisors. In 2004, however, the board upheld the 1999 decision. Tis new decision was all the more remarkable as the case concerned an opposition that had been withdrawn when an agreement was reached between the parties. Amazingly, the board decided to continue the proceedings, addressing whether the subject mark, ‘S380’, was distinctive for class 12 goods. Te refusal quickly became a severe headache for legal advisors and trademark prosecutors alike. Suddenly, NIPO had to review its administrative practice.
So the question was whether S380 was distinctive for class 12 goods. Te board distinguished between ordinary sub-brands on the one hand and, on the other, signs that are only capable of distinguishing one producer’s different models, and not one producer’s goods from another’s. Te decision argued that ‘it is common knowledge’ that combinations of letters and numbers are used in ‘many industries, including the car industry’ to distinguish the goods of individual manufacturers from each other. Tis apparently affects the expectations of the average consumer, who only perceives the subject mark as an identifier for one of the holder’s different models. Tere was a need to keep such identifiers free for the use of others. Te board generously leſt it to the legal advisors to decide in which other industries it was ‘common knowledge’ that such combinations were used in that way.
Te administrative practice change that followed involved refusals of all marks consisting of a combination of letters and/or numbers for all goods in many different classes where the concept of ‘models’ could possibly be an issue. And not only that, for some unfathomable reason, NIPO also decided to refuse non-descriptive three-letter marks for vehicles, saying that they could be perceived as mere model indications.
Tis practice unsurprisingly wreaked havoc in the Norwegian trademark world. Prosecutors argued over and over that the practice was in conflict with the principle that any sign could constitute a trademark and that two- letter signs had been registered for years. Claims were put forward that it was impossible to distinguish between ordinary sub-brands (separating one undertaking’s different products from each other) and ‘model indications’ (serving the exact same purpose). It was submitted that the rule was unpredictable, illogical and impractical, and that it had no counterpart in OHIM practice. It was pointed out that it was generally appreciated that the letters B, M, and W could be combined in at least one way to make up a perfectly good trademark for cars, and that since combinations of letters and numbers were indeed commonly used in the car industry, consumers would expect them to refer only to one single producer of cars. Appeals were hurled at the board.
“THE NEED TO KEEP INDICATIONS FREE IS NEVERTHELESS LARGELY TAKEN CARE OF BY THE PROVISIONS PROHIBITING REGISTRATION OF DESCRIPTIVE MARKS. IN ADDITION, MARKS THAT ARE DEVOID OF DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER MUST BE REFUSED, THOUGH NON-DESCRIPTIVE MARKS WILL RARELY BE DEVOID OF DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER.”
Some clarification was finally offered in case 7867 of May 2010, concerning the refusal of the mark ‘SR8’ for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11. Te board noted that the criteria for assessing distinctive character are the same for all trademarks. However, some types of indications are used in a way in certain industries that may affect the assessment. Descriptive abbreviations in the form of combinations of numbers and/or letters, for instance, seem to be common within the car industry, and the board referred to the L400 and S380 decisions. Te need to keep indications free is nevertheless largely taken care of by the provisions prohibiting registration of descriptive marks. In addition, marks that are devoid of distinctive character must be refused, though non-descriptive marks will rarely be devoid of distinctive character.
Te main point of this decision seems to be that when the board refers to L400 and S380, it is with regard to descriptive abbreviations—the word ‘descriptive’ was not mentioned in the prior decisions at all. Te notion that all combinations of letters and/or numbers must be refused (also for vehicles) therefore seems to be abandoned and the need to keep such indications free is only directed at the descriptive ones. (Tis of course corresponds with the public interest underlying refusals of descriptive marks in general.) It is however by no means certain that the board will begin to accept non-descriptive letter/number registrations for vehicles. It may be that the courts must have their say first, but most practitioners are confident that the board’s practice will eventually vanish.
Steinar Lie is an attorney in the trademark department at Bryn Aarflot. He can be contacted at:
sl@baa.no
90 World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108