Region: Norway

Oslo District Court invalidates registration of APPEAR

The Oslo District Court recently dismissed an infringement suit against the domain names ‘’ and ‘’ on the basis that the word mark APPEAR is non-distinctive and descriptive for telecommunication goods and services. However, the court upheld the registration for the combined mark APPEAR TV.

29 September 2017

Supreme Court invalidates registration for ROUTE 66

The Supreme Court has found that the registration of the mark ROUTE 66 for certain tourism-related goods and services was invalid. Among other things, the court found that the average Norwegian consumer would perceive ROUTE 66 as a geographical place. The fact that this road stretch had lost its formal status as part of the US highway system did not imply that it could no longer be considered as a geographical place.

28 February 2017

Protecting and enforcing design rights: Norway

Featured in Designs 2017: A Global Guide

Community designs offer no protection in the Norwegian territory since Norway is not part of the European Union. Hence, in order to obtain a design registration, a design owner must file a national registration with the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) or an international design registration designating Norway via the Hague System.

24 November 2016

Procedures and strategies for pharmaceutical brands: Norway

Norway has no separate rules for pharmaceutical trademarks (as opposed to other trademarks), but the practice of the Norwegian Intellectual Property Office (NIPO) highlights certain points to take into account. Eligibility depends on the rules set out in the Trademark Act, which is largely based on the EU Trademarks Directive (89/104/EC). For registration eligibility, the mark must have distinctive character, be non-descriptive and not conflict with the public interest. If it contains elements relating to the characteristics or functions of the pharmaceutical product, it is likely to be rejected as descriptive.

06 September 2016


Featured in Anti-counterfeiting 2016 – A Global Guide

With regard to customs surveillance and border control, Norwegian legislation (through the Customs Act) differs somewhat from that of the European Union.

27 April 2016

Court of Appeals: Intellectual Property Office was wrong to ignore CTM registration

The Borgarting Court of Appeals has overturned a decision of the Intellectual Property Office in which the latter had refused to register an international registration. The registration was based on a CTM and had been accepted in several non-European countries. Among other things, the court held that a CTM registration should be afforded some argumentative weight when assessing whether a mark has the required level of distinctiveness in Norway.

14 July 2015

Government consults on proposal for plain packaging for tobacco products

Norway has taken its first step towards the implementation of plain packaging for tobacco products, with the government releasing a public consultation document. With regard to the country’s commitments under the TRIPS Agreement, the government’s main argument is that trademark holders are not awarded a positive right to use their trademarks under the agreement, but only the right to prohibit third parties from using their marks.

08 April 2015


The eligibility of a pharmaceutical trademark for registration depends on the rules set out in the Trademark Act, which to a large extent is based on the EU Trademarks Directive (2008/95/EC), and the Norwegian courts generally interpret the act in line with decisions of the European Court of Justice.

13 February 2015


Featured in Designs 2015: A Global Guide

The following national legislation is relevant for design protection: the Designs Act 2003; the Designs Regulations 2003; the Marketing Control Act 2009; the Copyright Act 1961; the Trademark Act 2010; and the Patent Act 1967.

11 December 2014

Victory for Budvar in BUDWEISER case

The Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights has issued its decision in the long-running dispute between Anheuser-Busch LLC and Budejovicky Budvar NP over the registration of Budvar’s device mark BUDWEISER BUDVAR. Among other things, the Board of Appeal found that Budvar had not filed the application to prevent Anheuser-Busch from using its BUDWEISER mark in Norway.

02 December 2014

Get unlimited access to all WTR content