RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/NOR/1
24September 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3964)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Norway1
Thepresent document reproduces theintroductory statement made bythedelegation ofNorway,
thequestions puttoitandtheresponses given inthereview oflegislation ontrademarks, geographical
indications andindustrial designs attheCouncil 'smeeting of11-15 November 1996.2
_______________
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
Before dealing withthequestions puttotheGovernment ofNorway, mydelegation would
liketostress theimportance ofthisreview which gives ustheopportunity tofollow uptheparts of
theTRIPS Agreement relating totrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs. Iwould
liketothank theEuropean Communities, Japan andtheUnited States forthequestions posed tous,
thereby giving ustheopportunity toexplain thecurrent situation inNorway.
Iwould liketostartbygiving afewgeneral comments which arealsorelevant tothemore
detailed questions.
TheNorwegian Trademarks Actwaslastamended on22December 1995andtheseamendments
entered intoforce on1April 1996. Since thisrevision issorecent, anEnglish version hasonlybeen
available foraveryshort time. Wehavebrought thisnewEnglish version withustoGeneva and
Iampleased tosaythatitwillbenotified today. TheNorwegian Designs Actwasalsolastamended
on22December 1995. These amendments mostly concern theregistration procedure andareexpected
toenter intoforce on1January 1997.
Generally speaking, Ithink itisfairtosaythatNorway meets therequirements oftheTRIPS
Agreement intheareaofindustrial designs, trademarks andgeographical indications. However, in
ordertoensurefullcompliance,beyondanyquestion,theNorwegianGovernmenthasformallyproposed
afewminor amendments totheTrademarks ActandtheMarketing Control Actandthatproposal is
currently being considered bytheNorwegian Parliament anditisexpected thattheamendments will
beabletoenter intoforce on1January 1997.
1Asregards lawsandregulations relevant totheareas under review asnotified byNorway under Article 63.2ofthe
Agreement ,referenceismade todocument sIP/N/1/NOR/1, IP/N/1/NOR/T/1-2, IP/N/1/NOR/T/1/Rev.1, IP/N/1/NOR/G/1,
IP/N/1/NOR/D/1 andIP/N/1/NOR/I/1. Fornotifications received since thereview meeting, reference ismade to
document IP/N/1/NOR/1/Add.1
2Theminutes ofthismeeting arecontained indocument IP/C/M/11.IP/Q2/NOR/1
Page2
II. REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION CONCERNING PRIORITY RIGHTS3
Doesyourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
Yes. Norway doesrecognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member. Thisfollows fromtheTrademarks
Act,Section 30andmore specifically from Section 5oftheTrademarks Regulations.
III. REPLIESTOQUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIESANDTHEIR
MEMBER STATES
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 Trademarks Act,Section 29,atthesame timeasthecorresponding condition wasdeleted
from Sections 18and30.TheNorwegian Government hasbecome aware ofthisoversight andhas
formally proposed toamend Section 29oftheTrademarks Act(cf.Ot.prp.nr. 73(1995-96) p.11).
Theproposal iscurrently being considered bytheNorwegian Parliament (Stortinget).
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 totheTrademarks 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.
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 lawshould bepostponed untiltheinternational
3Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of11-15 November 1996, Members agreed torespond tothisquestion inthe
context ofthepresent review (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 43).IP/Q2/NOR/1
Page3
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?
Textile designs, including fashion, maybeprotected under theNorwegian Designs Actof
29May1970, No.33.Please notethatthelegaldefinition ofa"design" inSection 1oftheDesigns
Actalsocovers textile designs.
Chapter 1oftheDesigns Actprescribes theconditions thatmust besatisfied inorder fora
design toberegistered. Section 2provides thefundamental condition: "adesign mayasageneral rule
onlyberegistered ifitdiffers essentially fromwhatwasknown priortothefiling dateoftheapplication
forregistration".
IV. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYJAPAN
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 Designs Actof
29May1970, No33.Please notethatthelegaldefinition ofa"design" inSection 1oftheDesigns
Actalsocovers textile designs.
Theregistration procedure willshortly beamended. Thenewprocedure, which isexpected
toenter intoforce on1January 1997, isbriefly asfollows:
- Anapplication foraregistration ofadesign mustbemade inwriting tothePatent Office
andmustbeaccompanied bytheprescribed fees(Section 10).Thebasicfeeisatpresent
NOK 900.
- ThePatent Office examines whether theconditions forregistration ofthedesign are
fulfilled. Iftheapplicant hasnotcomplied withtheprescribed requirements, orifthe
Patent Office hasother objections totheregistration, theapplicant shallbenotified
thereof inanofficial letter andberequested toexpress hisorherviews ormake
amendments within aspecified time-limit. If,afterthereceipt oftheapplicant 'sreply,
thePatent Office stillfindsanobjection totheacceptance oftheapplication andifthe
applicanthashadoccasiontocommentontheobjection,theapplicationshallberejected,
unless thePatent Office findsreasons forsending theapplicant another official letter.
- Ifanapplication isintheprescribed formandnoobjection totheregistration isfound
toexist, thenthedesign isregistered andtheregistration ispublished (Section 18).
Thepublic thenhasfourmonths toenter oppositions (Section 20).Ifanopposition
isentered, thenthePatent Office maycancel theregistration ifitfinds thatthe
registration should nothavebeenmade, orreject theopposition ifitfindsnothing wrong
withtheregistration (Section 21).Thedecision ofthePatent Office maybeappealedIP/Q2/NOR/1
Page4
totheBoard ofAppeals (Section 22).Thedecision oftheBoard ofAppeals maybe
brought before acourt oflaw(Section 23).
- Iftheapplication isintheprescribed form, thedesign willnormally beregistered within
sixmonths afterthefiling date.ThePatent Office hasinitiated aproject withtheaim
ofspeeding uptheregistration procedure.
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 5oftheDesigns 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
ofthird parties". AsJapan correctly points out,Section 7oftheNorwegian Designs Actstipulates
thatimportation ofspare parts andaccessories tobeusedfortherepair ofaircraft, maybeexcluded
from theright todesign. This provision isnecessary inorder forNorway tocomply withthe
requirements ofArticle 27oftheConvention onInternational Civil Aviation, done atChicago on
7December 1944, towhich Norway isaparty. Itonlyallows forverylimited exceptions tothe
protection ofindustrial designs, anditistheviewofNorway thattheseexceptions donotunreasonably
conflict withthenormal exploitation ofprotected industrial designs andthattheydonotunreasonably
prejudice thelegitimate interests oftheowner oftheprotected design. Indeed, itisNorway 's
understanding thatthepurpose ofparagraph 2ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS Agreement isprecisely to
allow Members toretain provisions likeSection 7oftheNorwegian Designs 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 Designs Actstipulates thatadesign registration shallbeinforce
foruptofiveyears fromthedayonwhich theapplication forregistration wasfiled, andthatitmay,
uponrequest, berenewed fortwofurther periods offiveyears each. Eachofthese latter periods runs
from theexpiration ofthepreceding period. There areonlytworequirements fortherenewal ofthe
registration (cf.Section 25):firstly, therenewal must berequested noearlier thanoneyearbeforeIP/Q2/NOR/1
Page5
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.
V. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Chapter 1,Section 1ofNorway ’sTrademarks Actsetsforth 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 Trademarks Actincludes colour
marks. However, atrademark may, according toSection 13,notberegistered 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, i.e.ifthemark more specifically has
acquired 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 from Sections 4and6oftheTrademarks Actthatalikelihood ofconfusion shall
bepresumed ifanidentical signisusedforidentical goods orservices. Section 4states thattheright
toasigninaccordance 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 –theTrademarks Actpresumes thatsuchlikelihood of
confusion exists inthese cases.
3. TRIPS Article 20provides thatuseofatrademark shall notbeencumbered byspecial
requirements suchasuseinaspecial form. However, Chapter 1,Section 10oftheTrademarks Act
states that“where thisisfound reasonable, acourt oflawmaydecide thatoneorbothsigns infuture
maybeusedonlyforparticular goods inacertain areaorinaparticular manner, suchasinacertain
shape orformorwithreference toageographical location orwiththeaddition ofthename ofthe
proprietor oranyother elucidating addition ”insituations where aregistered markhasco-existed with
anunregistered trademark foraperiod oftime. Please explain howtheseprovisions comply withTRIPS
Article 20.
Article 20oftheTRIPS Agreement provides thattheuseofatrademark shallnotbeunjustifiably
encumbered byspecial requirements suchasuseinaspecial form. Section 10oftheNorwegian
Trademarks Actprescribes thatacourt oflawmayorder thattheuseofatrademark beencumbered
byspecial requirements suchasuseinaspecial form, butonlyincaseswhere thisisnecessary toprevent
anylikelihood ofconfusion asreferred toinSections 3,8and9oftheTrademarks Act,andwhereIP/Q2/NOR/1
Page6
itisfound reasonable. Norway believes thattheword "unjustifiably" wasincluded inArticle 20of
theTRIPS Agreement precisely sothattheTRIPS Agreement would notpreclude provisions innational
lawsuchasSection 10oftheNorwegian Trademarks Act.
4. Chapter 3,Section 25aoftheNorwegian Trademarks Actpermits theproprietor ofatrademark
topresent “proper reasons ”forcontinued registration despite non-use ofatrademark. Please explain
thecircumstances orsituations thatwould constitute “proper reasons ”sufficient tosatisfy thisprovision,
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 fortheseexclusions; 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 2oftheTrademarks 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). AIP/Q2/NOR/1
Page7
trademark which hasbeenregistered contrary totheprovisions oftheTrademarks 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 Trademarks Actgives aparticular ruleforcases where
theapplication forregistration wasmade ingood faith(cf.Article 6bis(2)oftheParis Convention):
"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 oftheTrademarks Actconcerning goods asageneral rulealso
apply toservices (cf.thethirdparagraph ofSection 1oftheTrademarks Act;cf.Article 16.2ofthe
TRIPS Agreement).
[Follow-up question from theUS]
Indetermining whether atrademark iswellknown under Section 2oftheTrademarks Act,does
anunregistered well-known mark havetobeusedinNorway inorder tobeprotected orcanprotection
ofanunregistered well-known mark bebased onknowledge ofthemark asaresult ofpromotion and
advertising?
Section 2oftheTrademarks Actdoesnotspecifically require thatthewell-known mark be
usedinNorway inorder forittobeprotected under theTrademarks Act. Intheory, therefore, itis
possible thatanunregistered well-known mark maybeaccorded protection solely onthebasis of
knowledge ofthemark asaresult ofpromotion andadvertising.
Itcould alsointhiscontext bepointed out,simply forthesakeofclarity, thatSection 25a
oftheTrademarksActconcerningtherequirementthatamarkbeusedwithinfiveyearsfromregistration
onlyapplies toregistered trademarks.
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.
TheTrademarks 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.
BoththeTrademarksActandtheMarketingControlActhaveprovisionsthatprotectgeographical
indications.
Section 14,No.2,oftheTrademarks 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.IP/Q2/NOR/1
Page8
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."
Please notethattheNorwegian Government formally hasproposed toaddanewprovision
toboththeTrademarks 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:
(a) theformorforms ofintellectual property usedtoprotect thedesign
(e.g., patent, copyright, suigeneris);
(b) theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection
(e.g., whether designs mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters ofthese concepts),
andabriefdescription oftheregistration orgranting procedure;
(c) thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided;
(d) thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including a
description oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial useis
required); and
(e) whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
(a) TheNorwegian Designs Actof29May1970, No.33,establishes asuigeneris system for
theprotection ofindustrial designs.
(b) Chapter 1oftheDesigns Actprescribes theconditions thatmust besatisfied inorder fora
design toberegistered. Section 2provides thatadesign, asageneral rule, onlymaybe
registered ifitdiffers essentially fromwhatwasknown priortothefiling dateoftheapplication
forregistration. Twoexceptions tothisgeneral rulearemade inSection 3:adesign maybe
registered evenifithasbecome available tothepublic within thelastsixmonths prior tothe
filing oftheapplication, ifthishasoccurred (i)inconsequence ofanevident abuse inrelation
totheapplicant oranyone from whom theapplicant 'sright isderived, or(ii)because theIP/Q2/NOR/1
Page9
applicant oranyone from whom theapplicant 'sright isderived hasdisplayed thedesign at
anofficial orofficially recognized exhibition.
Section 4stipulates thatadesign maynotberegistered if"thedesign oritsexploitation would
becontrary todecency orpublic order", orifthedesign without authorization contains:
- apublic coatofarms, flags, orother public emblems orsigns;
- anything thatislikely tobeinterpreted asthefirmname ortrademark ofsomeone else,
orthatislikely tobeinterpreted asthename orportrait ofanother person anddoes
notobviously refertosomebody deceased longago;
- anything thatislikely tobeinterpreted asthedistinctive titleofaprotected literary
orartistic workofsomeone else,orthatinfringes theauthorship (copyright) ofsomeone
elsetosuchwork, ortherightofsomeone elsetophotographs; or
- anything thatdoesnotessentially differ fromdesigns registered inNorway forsomeone
else.
Theregistration procedure willshortly beamended. Thenewprocedure, which isexpected
toenter 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, orifthe
Patent Office hasother objections totheregistration, theapplicant shallbenotified
thereof inanofficial letter andberequested toexpress hisorherviews ormake
amendments within aspecified time-limit. If,afterthereceipt oftheapplicant 'sreply,
thePatent Office stillfinds anobjection totheacceptance oftheapplication, andif
theapplicant hashadoccasion tocomment ontheobjection, theapplication shallbe
rejected, unless thePatent Office findsreasons forsending theapplicant another official
letter.
- Ifanapplication isintheprescribed formandnoobjection totheregistration isfound
toexist, thenthedesign isregistered andtheregistration ispublished (Section 18).
Thepublic thenhasfourmonths toenter oppositions (Section 20).Ifanopposition
isentered, thenthePatent Office maycancel theregistration ifitfinds thatthe
registration should nothavebeenmade, orreject theopposition ifitfindsnothing wrong
withtheregistration (Section 21).Thedecision ofthePatent Office maybeappealed
totheBoard ofAppeals (Section 22).Thedecision oftheBoard ofAppeals maybe
brought before acourt oflaw(Section 23).
(c) Thefirstparagraph ofSection 5oftheDesigns Actreads asfollows:
"Thedesignrightimplies,withtheexceptionsestablishedinthisAct,thatnobodyexcept
theholderofthedesignright(theholderofthedesign)maywithoutauthorizationexploit
thedesign commercially bymanufacturing, importing, offering forsale,transferring
orleasing goods, theappearance ofwhich doesnotdiffer essentially fromthedesign,
orgoods incorporating anything thatdoesnotdiffer essentially from thedesign."IP/Q2/NOR/1
Page10
Thedesign registration isinforce foruptofiveyears from thedayonwhich theapplication
forregistration wasfiled, andmayupon request berenewed fortwofurther periods offive
years each(Section 24).Eachsuchperiod offiveyears runsfromtheexpiration ofthepreceding
period.
(d) Theremedies available totheholder ofadesign aregiven inChapter 7oftheDesigns Act.
Theholder mayrequest criminal proceedings inrespect ofviolations oftheDesigns Act(see
Section 35).Fines orimprisonment foruptothree years isthepunishment foranyone who
isfound guilty ofinfringement ofanother person 'srightunder theDesigns Act.Furthermore,
damages maybeclaimed pursuant toSection 36,while Section 37provides rulesgoverning,
interalia,confiscation, destruction oramendment ofgoods constituting aninfringement of
adesign.
(e) Section 7oftheDesigns Actprovides anexception totheprotection accorded bytherightto
adesign. Theprovision stipulates thatimportation ofspare parts andaccessories tobeused
fortherepair ofaircraft maybeexcluded fromtherighttoadesign. Thisprovision isnecessary
inorder forNorway tocomply withtherequirements ofArticle 27oftheConvention on
International CivilAviation, doneatChicago on7December 1944, towhich Norway isaparty.
10. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Textile designs areprotected under theDesigns Act.Please notethatthelegal definition of
a"design" inSection 1oftheDesigns Actalsocovers textile designs.