Apple Mobile Phone Screens: Decision of the Supreme Court of Norway 2 June 2020 – Case No. HR-2020-1142-A (19-141420SIV-HRET)

The import of mobile phone screens, unlawfully affixed with a trademark covered by a permanent marker amounts to trademark infringement under Sec. 4 subsec. 1(a), cf. subsec. 3 of the Trademarks Act. The removal or covering of the affixed trademarks by a permanent marker alone does not eliminate the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 2021-04, Vol.52 (4), p.528-528
Main Author: Henrik Huseby v. Apple Inc Trademarks Act, Sec. 4
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Decision • Trade Mark Law
Intellectual Property
IT Law
Law
Law and Criminolgy
Media Law
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 528
container_issue 4
container_start_page 528
container_title IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
container_volume 52
creator Henrik Huseby v. Apple Inc Trademarks Act, Sec. 4
description The import of mobile phone screens, unlawfully affixed with a trademark covered by a permanent marker amounts to trademark infringement under Sec. 4 subsec. 1(a), cf. subsec. 3 of the Trademarks Act. The removal or covering of the affixed trademarks by a permanent marker alone does not eliminate the risk of harm to the trademark’s functions, since the ink from the marker may be removed. Protection in such a case cannot be weaker than in cases where the original trademark has been permanently removed.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s40319-021-01050-0
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref_sprin</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1007_s40319_021_01050_0</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1007_s40319_021_01050_0</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c172t-3c1bc2b97fc650d5a4a3918a3e8a3cbc9cca0b3e82b37efa3573a37a5e082cfb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9j91KAzEQhYMouNS-QK_6AtGZzMZsLkvxDyoK6nVIxkRb6u6S6IVvb3R77cBwmGHOYT4hFgjnCGAuSguEVoJCCQgaJByJRqHVdUXmWDQA2EnbaX0q5qXsoJZtO9NiIxarcdzH5f0QtlUe34c-Lp84x9iXM3GS_L7E-UFn4uX66nl9KzcPN3fr1UYyGvUpiTGwCtYkvtTwqn3ryWLnKdbmwJbZQ6iTCmRi8qQNeTJeR-gUp0AzoaZczkMpOSY35u2Hz98Owf0CugnQVUD3B-igmmgylXrcv8XsdsNX7uuf_7l-ACXQUe8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Apple Mobile Phone Screens: Decision of the Supreme Court of Norway 2 June 2020 – Case No. HR-2020-1142-A (19-141420SIV-HRET)</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Henrik Huseby v. Apple Inc Trademarks Act, Sec. 4</creator><creatorcontrib>Henrik Huseby v. Apple Inc Trademarks Act, Sec. 4</creatorcontrib><description>The import of mobile phone screens, unlawfully affixed with a trademark covered by a permanent marker amounts to trademark infringement under Sec. 4 subsec. 1(a), cf. subsec. 3 of the Trademarks Act. The removal or covering of the affixed trademarks by a permanent marker alone does not eliminate the risk of harm to the trademark’s functions, since the ink from the marker may be removed. Protection in such a case cannot be weaker than in cases where the original trademark has been permanently removed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0018-9855</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2195-0237</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40319-021-01050-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Decision • Trade Mark Law ; Intellectual Property ; IT Law ; Law ; Law and Criminolgy ; Media Law</subject><ispartof>IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2021-04, Vol.52 (4), p.528-528</ispartof><rights>Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Henrik Huseby v. Apple Inc Trademarks Act, Sec. 4</creatorcontrib><title>Apple Mobile Phone Screens: Decision of the Supreme Court of Norway 2 June 2020 – Case No. HR-2020-1142-A (19-141420SIV-HRET)</title><title>IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law</title><addtitle>IIC</addtitle><description>The import of mobile phone screens, unlawfully affixed with a trademark covered by a permanent marker amounts to trademark infringement under Sec. 4 subsec. 1(a), cf. subsec. 3 of the Trademarks Act. The removal or covering of the affixed trademarks by a permanent marker alone does not eliminate the risk of harm to the trademark’s functions, since the ink from the marker may be removed. Protection in such a case cannot be weaker than in cases where the original trademark has been permanently removed.</description><subject>Decision • Trade Mark Law</subject><subject>Intellectual Property</subject><subject>IT Law</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Law and Criminolgy</subject><subject>Media Law</subject><issn>0018-9855</issn><issn>2195-0237</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9j91KAzEQhYMouNS-QK_6AtGZzMZsLkvxDyoK6nVIxkRb6u6S6IVvb3R77cBwmGHOYT4hFgjnCGAuSguEVoJCCQgaJByJRqHVdUXmWDQA2EnbaX0q5qXsoJZtO9NiIxarcdzH5f0QtlUe34c-Lp84x9iXM3GS_L7E-UFn4uX66nl9KzcPN3fr1UYyGvUpiTGwCtYkvtTwqn3ryWLnKdbmwJbZQ6iTCmRi8qQNeTJeR-gUp0AzoaZczkMpOSY35u2Hz98Owf0CugnQVUD3B-igmmgylXrcv8XsdsNX7uuf_7l-ACXQUe8</recordid><startdate>20210406</startdate><enddate>20210406</enddate><creator>Henrik Huseby v. Apple Inc Trademarks Act, Sec. 4</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210406</creationdate><title>Apple Mobile Phone Screens</title></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c172t-3c1bc2b97fc650d5a4a3918a3e8a3cbc9cca0b3e82b37efa3573a37a5e082cfb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Decision • Trade Mark Law</topic><topic>Intellectual Property</topic><topic>IT Law</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Law and Criminolgy</topic><topic>Media Law</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Henrik Huseby v. Apple Inc Trademarks Act, Sec. 4</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><aucorp>Henrik Huseby v. Apple Inc Trademarks Act, Sec. 4</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Apple Mobile Phone Screens: Decision of the Supreme Court of Norway 2 June 2020 – Case No. HR-2020-1142-A (19-141420SIV-HRET)</atitle><jtitle>IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law</jtitle><stitle>IIC</stitle><date>2021-04-06</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>528</spage><epage>528</epage><pages>528-528</pages><issn>0018-9855</issn><eissn>2195-0237</eissn><abstract>The import of mobile phone screens, unlawfully affixed with a trademark covered by a permanent marker amounts to trademark infringement under Sec. 4 subsec. 1(a), cf. subsec. 3 of the Trademarks Act. The removal or covering of the affixed trademarks by a permanent marker alone does not eliminate the risk of harm to the trademark’s functions, since the ink from the marker may be removed. Protection in such a case cannot be weaker than in cases where the original trademark has been permanently removed.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s40319-021-01050-0</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0018-9855
ispartof IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2021-04, Vol.52 (4), p.528-528
issn 0018-9855
2195-0237
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1007_s40319_021_01050_0
source Springer Nature
subjects Decision • Trade Mark Law
Intellectual Property
IT Law
Law
Law and Criminolgy
Media Law
title Apple Mobile Phone Screens: Decision of the Supreme Court of Norway 2 June 2020 – Case No. HR-2020-1142-A (19-141420SIV-HRET)
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T19%3A00%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref_sprin&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Apple%20Mobile%20Phone%20Screens:%20Decision%20of%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Norway%202%20June%202020%20%E2%80%93%20Case%20No.%20HR-2020-1142-A%20(19-141420SIV-HRET)&rft.jtitle=IIC%20-%20International%20Review%20of%20Intellectual%20Property%20and%20Competition%20Law&rft.aucorp=Henrik%20Huseby%20v.%20Apple%20Inc%20Trademarks%20Act,%20Sec.%204&rft.date=2021-04-06&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=528&rft.epage=528&rft.pages=528-528&rft.issn=0018-9855&rft.eissn=2195-0237&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40319-021-01050-0&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref_sprin%3E10_1007_s40319_021_01050_0%3C/crossref_sprin%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c172t-3c1bc2b97fc650d5a4a3918a3e8a3cbc9cca0b3e82b37efa3573a37a5e082cfb3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true