1 August 2011Jurisdiction reportsLill Anita Grimstad

Norway court rules in air freshener case

By way of administrative proceedings, Julius Sämann Ltd opposed the registration of Balev Eood’s trademark (the applicant) for an aircraft body (device) and argued that it was confusingly similar to its established trademark protection for Little Trees/Wunderbaum air fresheners.

The Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) was not convinced by Julius Sämann’s arguments and the registration for the aircraft mark was upheld. The proprietor of the Little Trees/Wunderbaum marks went on to file an appeal against NIPO first instance decision, bringing the case to the Board of Appeal. T

he Board of Appeal upheld the first division decision and concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion, contrary to Julius Sämann’s claim. The dispute was then taken to court. Proceedings took place in June and a court decision was recently rendered.

The court agreed with Balev Eood on the question of the similarity of the marks and ruled in favour of the applicant.

The court’s findings

While it is clear that re-examining NIPO’s decision to register the aircraft mark is indeed within the competence of the court, the expertise and special knowledge on trademark matters held by NIPO dictates that the court should show a certain restraint in overturning its decisions.

The court noted that some of the goods in classes 3 and 5 were similar. The question, therefore, was whether the overall impression of the tree and the aircraft body were confusingly similar.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk