Evidence in IP Trials in the Nordics: Access to and Seizure of Evidence – Perspectives from Norway

Eirik Basmo Ellingsen; Ylva Høsøien

Evidence in IP Trials in the Nordics: Access to and Seizure of Evidence – Perspectives from Norway

Av Eirik Basmo Ellingsen, Ylva Høsøien

Ur Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd nr 4 2024

Ladda ner

Evidence in IP Trials in the Nordics: Access to and Seizure of Evidence – Perspectives from Norway

By Eirik Basmo Ellingsen[*]Partner, Advokatfirmaet Bahr AS. and Ylva Høsøien[**]Associate, Advokatfirmaet Bahr AS.

1. Requests for access to evidence

The Norwegian Dispute Act establishes a fundamental duty of truth and disclosure of evidence, to ensure that the court’s decisions are made on the correct factual basis.[1]Section 21-4 of the Norwegian Dispute Act. The parties in legal proceedings have a duty to make available as evidence objects, documents, electronically stored material etc. that are in their possession or which they can obtain possession of.[2]Section 26-5 of the Norwegian Dispute Act.

A party’s duty to disclose evidence entails that a party can be ordered to prepare compilations, extracts, or other processing of information that can be obtained from the evidence. The duty also extends to information about evidence that supports the opposing party’s case. The opposing party has a corresponding right to request access to evidence. Requests for access to evidence is fairly common in IP trials in Norway. Requests typically concern information required to properly assess a potential infringement.

Du måste vara inloggad för att ta del av det här innehållet

Endast prenumeranter kan logga in på NIR, teckna en prenumeration för att få tillgång till NIR digitalt.

Logga in | Prenumerera

Webbinarier

2025-04-22

Tidskriften Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd (NIR) bjuder in till ett webbinarium på temat Långsamt farväl till specialitetsgrundsatsen

Notiser

Distinctiveness for non-traditional trademarks and the inherent distinctiveness for surface patterns (PMCA, PMÄ 14666-22)

Rättsfall | Sverige

In this case regarding a trademark application for a geometrical figure as a surface pattern, the PMCA provide guidelines in relation to distinctiveness in relation to surface trademarks, and particularly the assessment for its inherited distinctiveness. This case further elaborates on the responsibilities an applicant holds in relation to showing distinctiveness for signs, patterns or products that are not typically associated with being trademarks.

The balance of the law on the peace of the maritime grave at the wreck of Estonia and the journalistic interest (the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden, B 5637-22)

Rättsfall | Sverige

The balance of the law on the peace of the maritime grave at the wreck of Estonia and the journalistic interest (the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden, B 5637-22) Filip Jerneke and Stefan Widmark Introduction In this case, two persons were convicted for offence against the law on the peace of the maritime grave at the wreck of the passenger vessel Estonia after diving close to and filming the wreck for the purpose of making a documentary film. In this context, the most interesting aspect is how the court draws the line between the peace of the maritime grave and the journalistic interest.

Gross defamation – similar statements in different media resulting in different judgements (Stockholm District Court, B 568-21 and Svea Court of Appeal B 374-20)

Rättsfall | Sverige

Whether defamation is made in constitutionally protected or other media can have decisive effect. This is shown in two judgments from Stockholm District Court and the Svea Court of Appeal. The cases concern similar statements made relatively close in time by a woman about a man. However, the woman was convicted in one case but acquitted in the other.

Jaguar replica sportscar does not constitute copyright infringement

Rättsfall | Sverige

This case concerns a dispute between international car manufacturer Jaguar and a Swedish company, as well as the company's two owners, regarding allegations of copyright infringement in the defendants' production of a replica Jaguar C-Type sportscar.(1) The second-instance Patent and Market Court of Appeal reversed the first instance-court's decision and found that the replica did not constitute copyright infringement on two unusual grounds:

Till notiser