RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/W/45
8November 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4747)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Replies from Norway toquestions posed bytheEuropean Community and
itsMember States1,Japan2andtheUnited States3
Thefollowing communication, dated 31October 1996, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Mission ofNorway.
1Document IP/C/W/37
2Document IP/C/W/40
3Document IP/C/W/39IP/C/W/45
Page2
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
AND ITSMEMBER STATES
Trademarks
1. Forthepurpose ofclarification: According toArticle 2.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, Members
shallcomply withArticles 1through 12,andArticle 19,oftheParis Convention (1967). TheNorwegian
Trademarks Act,Section 29(supplemented bytheTrademarks Regulations, Section 11)states that"telle
quelle" registration according toArticle 6quinquies oftheParis Convention shall be"subject to
reciprocity". Inlightofthefactthatthecondition ofreciprocity wasdeleted fromtheTrademarks
Act,Sections 18and30regarding priority inorder tocomply withtheTRIPS Agreement, theGovernment
should explain whyacondition forreciprocity isupheld inSection 29.
Itismerely duetoanoversight thatthecondition ofreciprocity wasnotdeleted from the
Norwegian Trademark Act,Section 29,atthesame timeasthecorresponding condition wasdeleted
from Sections 18and30.TheNorwegian Government hasbecome aware ofthisoversight, andhas
formally proposed toamend Section 29oftheTrademark Act(cf.Ot.prp.nr. 73(1995-96) p.11).
Theproposal iscurrently being considered bytheNorwegian Parliament (Stortinget).
Geographical indications
2. IntheGovernment 'sproposal totheNorwegian Parliament (Stortinget) toratify theTRIPS
Agreement, theGovernment stated thatitisnecessary toamend Norwegian lawinorder toimplement
theprotectionforgeographicalindicationsforwinesandspiritsunderArticle23oftheTRIPSAgreement
(St.prp.nr. 65-1993-94, p.169). TheNorwegian Government should inform about thestatus ofthe
proposed amendments toNorwegian legislation andatwhattimethese amendments areexpected to
enter intoforce.
TheNorwegian Government hasformally proposed amendments totheTrademark Actand
theMarketing Control Act,inorder toensure fullcompliance ofNorwegian lawwiththerequirements
ofArticle 23oftheTRIPS Agreement (cf.Ot.prp.nr. 73(1995-96) p.5).Theproposal iscurrently
being considered bytheNorwegian Parliament (Stortinget). Itisexpected thattheamendments will
enter intoforce on1January 1997.
Industrial designs
3. Under Article 25.2oftheTRIPS Agreement, eachMember shallensure thatrequirements for
securing protection fortextile designs, inparticular inregard toanycost,examination orpublication,
donotunreasonably impair theopportunity toseekandobtain suchprotection. IntheGovernment 's
proposal totheNorwegian Parliament (Stortinget) toratify theTRIPS Agreement (St.prp.nr. 65-1993-
94,p.169), theGovernment heldthatitisunclear whether Article 25.2requires specific provisions
inNorwegian legislation fortheprotection oftextile designs. According totheMinistry ofJustice 's
green paper of21December 1995, theMinistry isoftheopinion thattheassessment ofwhether itis
necessary togivespecific provisions inNorwegian law,should bepostponed untiltheinternational
development, especially intheEuropean Union, isfurther clarified. AstheNorwegian Government
isobliged toimplement theprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement within thetimelimits given inArticle 65,
theNorwegian Government should clarify whether Norwegian lawprotects textile designs, including
fashion (Article 25.2oftheTRIPS Agreement). Ifyes,which aretheconditions andwhatisthelegal
basis?IP/C/W/45
Page3
Textile designs, including fashion, maybeprotected under theNorwegian Design Actof
29May1970, No.33.Please notethatthelegaldefinition ofa"design" inSection 1oftheDesign
Actalsocovers textile designs.
Chapter 1oftheDesign Actprescribes theconditions thatmustbesatisfied inorder foradesign
toberegistered. Section 2provides thefundamental condition: "adesign mayasageneral ruleonly
beregistered ifitdiffers essentially from whatwasknown prior tothefiling dateoftheapplication
forregistration".
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYJAPAN
Industrial Designs
1. Since itisnotclearly stipulated intheDesigns Actthattextile designs areprotected inconformity
withtheTRIPS Agreement, please explain under which provision oftheActorother copyright related
lawthese designs areprotected. Moreover, tomake surethattheopportunity toseekandobtain
protection fortextile designs isnotimpaired unreasonably, please explain yoursystem orpractice
particularly withregard tocost,examination orpublication (cf.paragraph 2ofArticle 25oftheTRIPS
Agreement).
Textile designs, including fashion, maybeprotected under theNorwegian Design Actof
29May1970, No33.Please notethatthelegaldefinition ofa"design" inSection 1oftheDesign
Actalsocovers textile designs.
Theregistration procedure willshortly beamended. Thenewprocedure, which isexpected
toenter intoforce on1January 1997, isbriefly asfollows:
Anapplication foraregistration ofadesign mustbemade inwriting tothePatent Office and
must beaccompanied bytheprescribed fees(Section 10).Thebasic feeisatpresent NOK 900.
ThePatent Office examines whether theconditions forregistration ofthedesign arefulfilled.
Iftheapplicant hasnotcomplied withtheprescribed requirements, orifthePatent Office hasother
objections totheregistration, theapplicant shallbenotified thereof inanofficial letter andberequested
toexpress hisorherviews ormake amendments within aspecified time-limit. If,afterthereceipt of
theapplicant 'sreply, thePatent Office stillfindsanobjection totheacceptance oftheapplication and
iftheapplicant hashadoccasion tocomment ontheobjection, theapplication shallberejected, unless
thePatent Office finds reasons forsending theapplicant another official letter.
Ifanapplication isintheprescribed formandnoobjection totheregistration isfound toexist,
thenthedesign isregistered andtheregistration ispublished (Section 18).Thepublic thenhasfour
months toenteroppositions (Section 20).Ifanopposition isentered, thenthePatent Office maycancel
theregistration ifitfinds thattheregistration should nothavebeenmade, orreject theopposition if
itfinds nothing wrong withtheregistration (Section 21).Thedecision ofthePatent Office maybe
appealed totheBoard ofAppeals (Section 22).Thedecision oftheBoard ofAppeals maybebrought
before acourt oflaw(Section 23).
Iftheapplication isintheprescribed form, thedesign willnormally beregistered within six
months afterthefiling date.ThePatent Office hasinitiated aproject withtheaimofspeeding upthe
registration procedure.IP/C/W/45
Page4
2. Theword"selling" isnotincluded inthescope oftherighttoadesign provided forinSection 5
oftheDesigns Act. Iftheword "assigning" corresponds totheword "selling", please elaborate on
thedifference between thetwo(cf.paragraph 1ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Thefirstparagraph ofSection 5oftheDesign Actreads asfollows:
"The design rightimplies, withtheexceptions established inthisAct,thatnobody except the
holder ofthedesign right(theholder ofthedesign) maywithout authorization exploit thedesign
commercially bymanufacturing, importing, offering forsale,transferring orleasing goods,
theappearance ofwhich doesnotdiffer essentially from thedesign, orgoods incorporating
anything thatdoesnotdiffer essentially from thedesign."
Norway isoftheopinion thatthisprovision isconsistent withArticle 26oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
3. Inyourcountry, itisstipulated inSection 7oftheDesigns Actthatimportation ofspare parts
andaccessories tobeusedfortherepair ofaircraft maybeexcluded fromtherighttoadesign. Please
explain itsconsistency withparagraph 2ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Paragraph 2ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS Agreement allows Members toprovide "limited
exceptions totheprotection ofindustrial designs, provided thatsuchexceptions donotunreasonably
conflict withthenormal exploitation ofprotected industrial designs anddonotunreasonably prejudice
thelegitimate interests oftheowner oftheprotected design, taking account ofthelegitimate interests
ofthirdparties". AsJapan correctly points out,Section 7oftheNorwegian Design Actstipulates that
importation ofspare partsandaccessories tobeusedfortherepair ofaircraft, maybeexcluded from
therighttodesign. Thisprovision isnecessary inorder forNorway tocomply withtherequirements
ofArticle 27oftheConvention onInternational CivilAviation, doneatChicago on7December 1944,
towhich Norway isaParty. Itonlyallows forverylimited exceptions totheprotection ofindustrial
designs, anditistheviewofNorway thattheseexceptions donotunreasonably conflict withthenormal
exploitation ofprotected industrial designs andthattheydonotunreasonably prejudice thelegitimate
interests oftheowner oftheprotected design. Indeed, itisNorway 'sunderstanding thatthepurpose
ofparagraph 2ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS Agreement isprecisely toallow Members toretain provisions
likeSection 7oftheNorwegian Design Act.
4. Inyourcountry, thefirstduration ofprotection available islessthantenyears, andanyrenewal
thereafter cannot berequested atthetimeofregistration. Itmayhappen, therefore, thattheduration
ofprotection islessthantenyears whenthefirstduration haslapsed andtherestoration isnotpermitted
afterwards. Would thisnotbecontrary tothespirit ofparagraph 3ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS
Agreement?
Section 24oftheNorwegian Design Actstipulates thatadesign registration shallbeinforce
foruptofiveyears from thedayonwhich theapplication forregistration wasfiled, andthatitmay
upon request berenewed fortwofurther periods offiveyears each. Each ofthese latter periods runs
from theexpiration ofthepreceding period. There areonlytworequirements fortherenewal ofthe
registration (cf.Section 25):firstly, therenewal must berequested noearlier thanoneyearbefore
andnolaterthansixmonths aftertheexpiration ofthepreceding period, andsecondly, theapplicant
mustpaytheprescribed feeswithin thesame interval. Itisleftentirely totheholder ofthedesign right
todecide whether ornottorenew theright. Theduration ofprotection available isthus15years. It
isdifficult toseehowthiscould becontrary tothespirit ofparagraph 3ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS
Agreement.IP/C/W/45
Page5
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Chapter 1,Section 1ofNorway ’sTrademark Lawsetsforth thetypeofsignthatiscapable
ofbeing protected asatrademark. Thelistofsigns doesnotinclude colour marks. Please explain
whether colour marks arecapable ofconstituting atrademark under Norway ’sTrademark Law, and
ifso,under whatauthority.
Intheory, thelistofsigns under Section 1oftheNorwegian Trademark Actincludes colour
marks. However, atrademark mayaccording toSection 13notberegistered unless itiscapable of
distinguishing thegoods oftheholder from those ofothers. Acolour mark maytherefore onlybe
registered asatrademark ifitisconsidered tobewell-known within thecircle oftrade concerned in
Norway asadistinctive signforsomeone 'sgoods orservices, thatisifthemark more specifically
hasacquired a"secondary meaning" inwhich thepublic identifies thecolour withtheproduct.
There isatpresent nosingle colour mark registered asatrademark inNorway.
2. Please explain whether Norwegian trademark lawestablishes apresumption oflikelihood of
confusioninthedeterminationofconfusingsimilarityincaseswhereidenticalmarksareusedonidentical
goods, asrequired byTRIPS Article 16.1. Ifso,please identify andexplain thelegal basis forthis
presumption.
Itfollows fromSections 4and6oftheTrademark Actthatalikelihood ofconfusion shallbe
presumed ifanidentical signisusedforidentical goods orservices. Section 4states thattherightto
asigninaccordance withSections 1to3hastheeffect that,inthecourse oftrade, nobody except
theholder mayusethesamesignforhisorhergoods orservices (cf.thethirdparagraph ofSection 1).
Anidentical signisalways considered asthe"same sign" within themeaning ofthisprovision, and
itfollows fromSection 6thattheprovision always applies toidentical goods orservices. Inotherwords,
theholder doesnothavetoprove likelihood ofconfusion ineachparticular casewhere anidentical
signisusedforidentical goods orservices –theTrademark Actpresumes thatsuchlikelihood of
confusion exists inthese cases.
3. TRIPS Article 20provides thatuseofatrademark shall notbeencumbered byspecial
requirements suchasuseinaspecial form. However, Chapter 1,Section 10states that“where this
isfound reasonable, acourt oflawmaydecide thatoneorbothsigns infuture maybeusedonlyfor
particular goods inacertain areaorinaparticular manner, suchasinacertain shape orformor
withreference toageographical location orwiththeaddition ofthename oftheproprietor orany
other elucidating addition ”insituations where aregistered mark hasco-existed withanunregistered
trademark foraperiod oftime. Please explain howthese provisions comply withTRIPS Article 20.
Article 20oftheTRIPS Agreement provides thattheuseofatrademark shallnotbeunjustifiably
encumbered byspecial requirements suchasuseinaspecial form. Section 10oftheNorwegian
Trademark Actprescribes thatacourt oflawmayorder thattheuseofatrademark beencumbered
byspecial requirements suchasuseinaspecial form, butonlyincaseswhere thisisnecessary toprevent
anylikelihood ofconfusion asreferred toinSections 3,8and9oftheTrademark Act,andwhere
itisfound reasonable. Norway believes thattheword "unjustifiably" wasincluded inArticle 20of
theTRIPS Agreement precisely sothattheTRIPS Agreement would notpreclude provisions innational
lawsuchasSection 10oftheNorwegian Trademark Act.
4. Chapter 3,Section 25aoftheNorwegian Trademark Lawpermits theproprietor ofatrademark
topresent “proper reasons ”forcontinued registration despite non-use ofatrademark. Please explain
thecircumstances orsituations thatwould constitute “proper reasons ”sufficient tosatisfy thisprovision,IP/C/W/45
Page6
including, where relevant, information regarding administrative orjudicial decisions addressing this
issue.
Thetravaux preparatoires (Ot.prp.nr. 72(1991-92) p.81)giveafewexamples ofcircumstances
orsituations thatwould constitute "proper reasons" forcontinued registration despite non-use ofa
trademark: prohibitions against importation, actsofwar,apublic authority 'sdilatoriness inissuing
arequired approval ofaproduct, orastopinproduction caused byafireintheholder 'sfactory.
Section 25aentered intoforce on1January 1993. Noadministrative orjudicial decisions addressing
thisissue havebeengiven yet,andnonecanbeexpected before 1998 attheearliest.
5. Please explain whether thenature ofgoods orservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied
canserve asanobstacle totheregistration ofthemark under Norwegian law. Ifso,please identify
andexplain thesubject matter excluded under thisauthority; therelative provisions oftheNorwegian
lawthatserve asabasis forthese exclusions; andhowthispractice complies withTRIPS Article 15.4.
Thenature ofgoods orservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied maynotserve asan
obstacle totheregistration ofthemark under Norwegian law.
6. Please explain howunregistered well-known trademarks areprotected inNorway, asrequired
byTRIPS Articles 16.2and16.3.
Unregisteredwell-knowntrademarksareinNorwayprotectedinmuchthesamewayasregistered
well-known trademarks. Section 2oftheTrademark Actprescribes howexclusive rights toa
non-registered trademark areacquired:
"The exclusive right toatrademark mayalsobeacquired without registration when the
trademark isestablished byuse.
Atrademark isconsidered tobeestablished when itiswell-known within thecircle oftrade
concerned inthiscountry asadistinctive signforsomeone 'sgoods."
Itfollows fromSection 4thattheexclusive rightthusconferred upontheholder hastheeffect
thatnobody buttheholder mayusethesamesigninthecourse oftrade. Theterm"same sign" isdefined
inSection 4asasignwhich issosimilar toanother sign,thatitislikely tobeconfused withthatother
signinthecourse oftrade. Thefirstparagraph ofSection 6provides thegeneral rulethatsigns only
shallbelikely tobeconfused iftheyrelate toidentical orsimilar goods. Thesecond paragraph of
Section 6provides anexception tothisrule:
"Signs thataresimilar shallhowever beconsidered likely tobeconfused eveniftheydonot
relate toidentical orsimilar goods, ifthesignwiththeearlier right issowell-known and
established inthiscountry, thatitwould imply anunreasonable exploitation orbedetrimental
toitsgoodwill iftheother signwere tobeusedbysomeone else."
Ifsomeone hasexclusive rights toanunregistered trademark inaccordance withthese rules,
thentheregistration ofthesame signbysomeone elseshall berefused (Sections 19and21a). A
trademark which hasbeenregistered contrary totheprovisions oftheTrademark Actmaybedeclared
invalid byacourt decision (Section 25).There isnotime-limit forrequesting thecancellation orthe
prohibition oftheuseoftrademarks registered orusedinbadfaith(cf.Article 6bis(3)oftheParis
Convention (1967)). Section 8oftheNorwegian Trademark Actgives aparticular ruleforcases where
theapplication forregistration wasmade ingood faith(cf.Article 6bis(2)oftheParis Convention):IP/C/W/45
Page7
"Even where aregistered trademark islikely tobeconfused withasignwhich hasanearlier
right, itshallbeallowed toexistvalidly sidebysidewiththelatter, provided thattheapplication
forregistration wasfiledingoodfaithandtheholder oftheearlier righthasknowingly tolerated
theuseofthelatertrademark forfiveconsecutive years from thedateofregistration."
Please notethattheprovisions oftheTrademark Actconcerning goods asageneral rulealso
apply toservices (cf.thethirdparagraph ofSection 1oftheTrademark Act;cf.Article 16.2ofthe
TRIPS Agreement).
7. Please explain whether Norwegian lawpermits orprecludes theassignment ofaregistered
trademark without thetransfer oftheunderlying business. Ifitprecludes theassignment ofaregistered
trademark where theunderlying business isnottransferred withthemark, please explain howthis
complies withtheprovisions ofTRIPS Article 21.
TheTrademark Act,Section 32,explicitly permits theassignment ofaregistered trademark
without thetransfer oftheunderlying business.
8. Please explain howgeographical indications areprotected under Norway ’slaw,asrequired
byTRIPS Articles 22and23.
BoththeTrademarkActandtheMarketingControlActhaveprovisionsthatprotectgeographical
indications.
Section 14,No.2,oftheTrademark Actprovides thatatrademark shallnotberegistered if
"itislikely todeceive thepublic". Section 36prohibits theuseofdeceptive signs:
"Ifasignisputtousebyanewholder orbyanyother person withtheconsent oftheholder,
andtheuseofthesignbythenewholder islikely tobedeceptive, acourt oflawmayprohibit
himfromusing thesigninanunaltered form, andotherwise order suchinjunctions asthecourt
finds necessary.
Thesame alsoapplies inother cases where asignisdeceptive orisusedinawaywhich is
likely tobedeceptive.
Alegal action according tothisSection maybebrought bythePatent Office orbyanyone
whohasalegalinterest init."
Section 1oftheMarketing Control Actproscribes actswhich runcounter to"good business
practice". Theuseoffalseorotherwise misleading geographical indications isgenerally considered
tobecontrary togood business practice, andistherefore prohibited. Such useisalsoprohibited by
thefirsttwosub-sections ofSection 2oftheMarketing Control Act,which readasfollows:
"Itisprohibited intheconduct ofbusiness toapply anincorrect orotherwise misleading
representation which islikely toinfluence thedemand fororsupply ofgoods, services orother
performances.
Thesame applies toanyother procedure which mayhavesuchinfluence onthedemand or
supply, ifasaresult ofitsform orother circumstances itislikely tomislead consumers."IP/C/W/45
Page8
Please notethattheNorwegian Government formally hasproposed toaddanewprovision
toboththeTrademark ActandtheMarketing Control Act,inorder tobetter ensure fullcompliance
ofthese actswiththerequirements ofArticle 23oftheTRIPS Agreement. Theproposal iscurrently
being considered bytheNorwegian Parliament (Stortinget).
9. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected inNorway, inparticular:
- theformorforms ofintellectual property usedtoprotect thedesign
(e.g., patent, copyright, suigeneris);
- theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection
(e.g., whether designs mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters ofthese concepts),
andabriefdescription oftheregistration orgranting procedure;
- thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided;
- thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including a
description oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial useis
required); and
- whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
(a) TheNorwegian Design Actof29May1970, No.33,establishes asuigeneris system
fortheprotection ofindustrial designs.
(b) Chapter 1oftheDesign Actprescribes theconditions thatmustbesatisfied inorder
foradesign toberegistered. Section 2provides thatadesign asageneral ruleonlymayberegistered
ifitdiffers essentially fromwhatwasknown priortothefiling dateoftheapplication forregistration.
Twoexceptions tothisgeneral rulearemade inSection 3:adesign mayberegistered evenifithas
become available tothepublic within thelastsixmonths prior tothefiling oftheapplication, ifthis
hasoccurred (i)inconsequence ofanevident abuse inrelation totheapplicant oranyone fromwhom
theapplicant 'srightisderived, or(ii)because theapplicant oranyone fromwhom theapplicant 'sright
isderived hasdisplayed thedesign atanofficial orofficially recognized exhibition.
Section 4stipulates thatadesign maynotberegistered if"thedesign oritsexploitation would
becontrary todecency orpublic order", orifthedesign without authorization contains:
a) apublic coatofarms, flags, orother public emblems orsigns;
b) anything thatislikely tobeinterpreted asthefirmname ortrademark ofsomeone else,
orthatislikely tobeinterpreted asthename orportrait ofanother person anddoes
notobviously refertosomebody deceased longago;
c) anything thatislikely tobeinterpreted asthedistinctive titleofaprotected literary
orartistic workofsomeone else,orthatinfringes theauthorship (copyright) ofsomeone
elsetosuchwork, ortherightofsomeone elsetophotographs; or
d) anything thatdoesnotessentially differ fromdesigns registered inNorway forsomeone
else.IP/C/W/45
Page9
Theregistration procedure willshortly beamended. Thenewprocedure, which isexpected to
enter intoforce on1January 1997, isbriefly asfollows:
- Anapplication foraregistration ofadesign mustbemade inwriting tothePatent Office
andmust beaccompanied bytheprescribed fees(Section 10).
- ThePatent Office examines whether theconditions forregistration ofthedesign are
fulfilled. Iftheapplicant hasnotcomplied withtheprescribed requirements, orifthePatent
Office hasother objections totheregistration, theapplicant shallbenotified thereof in
anofficial letter andberequested toexpress hisorherviews ormake amendments within
aspecified time-limit. If,afterthereceipt oftheapplicant 'sreply, thePatent Office still
findsanobjection totheacceptance oftheapplication, andiftheapplicant hashadoccasion
tocomment ontheobjection, theapplication shallberejected, unless thePatent Office
finds reasons forsending theapplicant another official letter.
- Ifanapplication isintheprescribed form andnoobjection totheregistration isfound
toexist, thenthedesign isregistered, andtheregistration ispublished (Section 18).The
public thenhasfourmonths toenter oppositions (Section 20).Ifanopposition isentered,
thenthePatent Office maycancel theregistration ifitfinds thattheregistration should
nothavebeenmade, orreject theopposition ifitfindsnothing wrong withtheregistration
(Section 21).Thedecision ofthePatent Office maybeappealed totheBoard ofAppeals
(Section 22).Thedecision oftheBoard ofAppeals maybebrought before acourt oflaw
(Section 23).
(c) Thefirstparagraph ofSection 5oftheDesign Actreads asfollows:
"The design rightimplies, withtheexceptions established inthisAct,thatnobody except the
holder ofthedesign right(theholder ofthedesign) maywithout authorization exploit thedesign
commercially bymanufacturing, importing, offering forsale,transferring orleasing goods, the
appearance ofwhich doesnotdiffer essentially fromthedesign, orgoods incorporating anything
thatdoesnotdiffer essentially from thedesign."
Thedesign registration isinforce foruptofiveyears from thedayonwhich theapplication
forregistration wasfiled, andmayuponrequest berenewed fortwofurther periods offiveyears each
(Section 24).Each suchperiod offiveyears runsfrom theexpiration ofthepreceding period.
(d) Theremedies available totheholder ofadesign aregiven inChapter 7oftheDesign Act.
Theholder mayrequest criminal proceedings inrespect ofviolations oftheDesign Act(seeSection 35).
Fines ortheimprisonment foruptothree years isthepunishment foranyone whoisfound guilty of
infringement ofanother person 'srightunder theDesign Act.Furthermore, damages maybeclaimed
pursuant toSection 36,while Section 37provides rulesgoverning, interalia,confiscation, destruction
oramendment ofgoods constituting aninfringement ofadesign.
(e) Section 7oftheDesign Actprovides anexception totheprotection accorded bytheright
toadesign. Theprovision stipulates thatimportation ofspare partsandaccessories tobeusedforthe
repair ofaircraft, maybeexcluded from therighttodesign. Thisprovision isnecessary inorder for
Norway tocomply withtherequirements ofArticle 27oftheConvention onInternational CivilAviation,
doneatChicago on7December 1944, towhich Norway isaParty.IP/C/W/45
Page10
10. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Textile designs areprotected under theDesign Act.Please notethatthelegal definition ofa
"design" inSection 1oftheDesign Actalsocovers textile designs.