Reference cases

Below we have summarized a few of the latest enforcement and litigation matters we have been involved in.


Pump Supply As v. Multi Pump Innovation AS
Invalid patent claim

The district court had found in a previous case between the parties that the apparatus for removing marine growth from net pens, marketed by Pump Supply infringed on our client’s pending patent. Pump Supply appealed that decision, and went on to claim invalidity of the patent e.g. because it allegedly lacked novelty and inventive step, that the priority was invalid and that MPI had made unlawful changes to the patent. Following a three days court hearing, the district court ruled in favor of our client, and the patent registration was upheld.

Our client was awarded full legal costs of NOK. 1 044 000. The judgment is not yet final and enforceable.

 

Hackit Norway AS v. Aanonsen Jernvarer AS
Alleged design infringement 

In a case concerning kitchen wear, Hackit Norway claimed that Bryn Aarflot’s client was infringing the plaintiff’s registered design right. It was also submitted that Aanonsen had acted in breach of good business conduct. The court concluded that there was no infringement no breach of the Marketing Control Act.

Aanonssen Jernvare was awarded full legal costs of NOK. 226 800. The judgment is final and enforceable.

 

Orkla Confectionary and Snacks Norway AS v. Estrella Maarud AB and Maarud AS
Alleged invalidity/degeneration of a trademark

The plaintiff held that Maarud’s registered trademark POTETGULL (potato gold) covering potato chips/crisps in class 29 was invalid because it had become the common term for the goods at issue by the time of registration. Alternatively, it was submitted that the mark had degenerated since the date of registration. Orkla also filed for a negative declaratory judgment stating that Orkla could use the term Potetgull for their identical goods without infringing Maarud’s rights under the Trademarks Act or the Marketing Control Act. After proceedings before both Oslo City Court and the Court of Appeal, Maaruds’s trademark was invalidated and Orkla was granted the requested negative declaratory judgement. Maarud’s appeal to the Supreme Court was not admitted.

 

SWIX AS v. Fischer GmbH and Finor AS

In yet another patent infringement case Bryn Aarflot again successfully defend Fischer GmbH and Finor AS (Fischer) against a law suit filed by Swix AS, a large Norwegian manufacturer of ski wax, ski poles and ski clothing. The case concerned a patented method of releaseably securing a pole basket to a ski pole. Again following a three day court hearing, the City Court came to the conclusion that there were no infringement, neither directly nor by equivalence. The court also concluded that Fischer did not act in breach of good business conduct.

Fischer was awarded full legal costs. The decision was appealed but settled before the hearing in the Court of Appeals.

 

Movement AS v. Fish AS

Movement AS claimed that Bryn Aarflot’s client Fish AS should be ordered to transfer the domain name www.movement.no to them, claiming they had prior rights to the name. They also accused that Fish AS, who owned more than 2000 domain names, of domain name piracy. The court concluded that the domain was registered before Movement AS registered MOVEMENT as a trademark, and that they had no acquired trademark rights to the name. The court also held that Fish AS legally obtained the domain name once it became available after having been abandoned by the prior holder.

Fish AS was awarded full legal costs, and the decision was not appealed.

 

Active Brands AS v. Fischer GmbH and Finor AS

Bryn Aarflot successfully defended Fischer GmbH and Finor AS (Fischer) against a patent infringement claim put forward by Active Brands AS. The patented technology concerned a method of attaching a kick enhancing surface to a ski. Following a three-day hearing the court held that Fischer’s solution did not infringe Active Brands’ patent rights, neither directly nor by equivalence.

Fischer was awarded full legal costs, and Active Brands did not appeal the decision.

 

NYX Los Angeles Inc. v State of Norway

On behalf of our American client NYX Los Angeles Inc., Bryn Aarflot successfully argued before Oslo City Court that the following trademarks were not confusingly similar, contrary to what was previously held by NIPO and the Board of Appeal.

NYX was awarded full legal costs, and the State did not appeal the decision.

 

Multi Pump Invention AS v. Pump Supply AS

In this case Bryn Aarflot assisted MPI in suing Pump Supply for patent infringement based on a patent pending technology concerning an apparatus for removing marine growth from netpens. Following a three-day long hearing the court held, firstly, that MPI had proven that the client’s application would likely lead to a granted patent and, secondly, that Pump Supply’s product was infringing on the protected technology.
MPI was awarded approximately 80 % of their legal costs.

The decision is appealed.

 

Weltevree Experience B.V.  and others v. Bluefish AS

On behalf of our Dutch clients, Bryn Aarflot successfully argued that the client’s particular style of outdoor hot tub was subject to copyright protection, and was thereby able to prohibit marketing and sale of copied products by Bluefish AS.
Weltevree Experience was awarded damages and partial legal costs.

The decision was appealed, but Bluefish AS has since been liquidated.

 

Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. v. Techno Classic AS

Bryn Aarflot successfully assisted the car manufacturer Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) in arguing that a used car dealership was infringing their trademark rights by using the JAGUAR and LAND ROVER trademarks in their marketing, hereunder use of the words in similar fonts and use of the term “Jaguarspesialisten” (The Jaguar Specialist). The Appeal Court also ordered Techno Classic to transfer several domain names such as www.jaguarshop.no and www.jaguarspesialisten.no to JLR.JLR was awarded a total of $120 000 in legal costs and damages.

Techno Classic’s appeal was denied by the Supreme Court.

 

Are you interested in more information regarding enforcement and litigation – you are welcome to contact one of our lawyers.