Trademarks in Norway – An overview

Varemerker i Norge, trademark, registrere varemerke, varemerkeregistrering, advokat

Trademarks in Norway – An overview

A trademark gives your business an identity and legal protection in the market. This guide provides an overview of how trademarks work in Norway, the requirements for registration, and the rights you gain from an approved application. We explain distinctiveness, the risk of confusion, and how to proceed to secure exclusive rights to your name or logo.

Trademarks in Norway

A trademark is a sign used to distinguish one business’s goods or services from those of others. This can include words, logos, figures, slogans, or a combination thereof.

The main purpose of a trademark is to provide consumers with a guarantee of the commercial origin of goods or services, as well as to protect a company’s identity in the market. In Norway, trademarks can be established either through registration or by use (acquired distinctiveness).

Although trademark law generally shares similarities across borders and is largely harmonised through EU law, there are certain features unique to the Norwegian system. Firstly, Norway is not covered by the EU trademark system, meaning that trademark applications must be filed directly with the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (Patentstyret) to have effect in Norway. Secondly, Norway operates a so-called multi-class system, which allows a trademark application to cover several goods and services across different classes. Furthermore, in our experience, the Norwegian Industrial Property Office applies a relatively high threshold for the requirement of distinctiveness, compared to, for example, the European Union Intellectual Property Office.

Read more: Brækhus IP Recognised in Leading Global IP Rankings 2025 – Brækhus

The Requirement of Distinctiveness

To be eligible for registration, a trademark must be distinctive. This means that the mark must be capable of distinguishing one business’s goods or services from those of others. Generic or descriptive terms that merely describe the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or services will generally lack distinctiveness and cannot be registered.

Examples of distinctive trademarks include unique words, invented names, or characteristic logos, such as APPLE (for electronic goods) and STARBUCKS (for coffee and café services).

Conflict with Prior Rights

Another key requirement is that the trademark must not be identical or confusingly similar to already established trademarks (whether registered or acquired by use). This is to prevent consumer confusion and to protect existing rights holders. In assessing this, factors such as phonetic similarity, visual appearance, and the goods or services covered by the marks are considered.

Why Is Trademark Registration Important?

  • Ownership and exclusive rights: Registration grants you the exclusive right to use the trademark for the goods and services it is registered for throughout Norway (acquired rights through use may only apply locally).
  • Prevention of conflicts: You can more easily prevent others from using similar marks and avoid infringing on the rights of others.
  • Increased value: A registered trademark can be a valuable intangible asset and enhance your company’s value.
  • Basis for legal action: In the event of infringement, you have strong legal protection and can take legal action to enforce your rights.

How to Register a Trademark in Norway

  • Preliminary search: If you are unsure whether your trademark meets the registration requirements, check if the mark is available and fulfils the registration criteria by conducting a confidential preliminary search with the Norwegian Industrial Property Office or by seeking other legal expertise.
  • Application: Submit an application to the Norwegian Industrial Property Office, including a description of the mark and the goods/services it will cover. As one of few Norwegian law firms, Brækhus offers an active portfolio service for trademark and design registrations, and is happy to assist you with your application.
  • Examination: The Norwegian Industrial Property Office will assess your application. Upon approval, you obtain exclusive rights to the mark.

Frequently Asked Questions about Trademarks in Norway

Can I use ™ or ® when marketing my goods or services?

Read more: Brækhus’ expertise in intellectual property rights and marketing law

Do you have questions about trademarks or need assistance? Contact us today.

Contact

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Name*

Brækhus IP Continues to Make its Mark Internationally Through Multiple Global IP Rankings

Brækhus IP Continues to Make its Mark Internationally Through Multiple Global IP Rankings

Brækhus IP is strengthening its position as a leading player in intellectual property law in Norway. In this year’s prestigious international rankings from Legal 500, Chambers, Managing IP, and IAM Patent 1000, the team continues to climb.

The need for specialised advice within intellectual property law is increasing as more and more Norwegian and international businesses seek legal assistance to protect their assets. In this highly competitive landscape, international rankings such as Legal 500, Chambers, Managing IP, and IAM Patent 1000 serve as important marks of quality – both for clients and for the industry as a whole. The rankings are largely based on client feedback, which makes the recognition particularly valuable:

“We greatly appreciate the positive feedback from our clients. It is inspiring to see our work being recognised. The acknowledgement underlines our ambition to deliver quality, professionalism, and innovation in every single case we handle,” says Julius Berg Kaasin, partner and head of IP at Brækhus.

Strong Placements in Several Renowned Rankings

Brækhus IP’s solid professional work has been recognised in several of the most respected international IP guides. The team has achieved strong rankings at both firm and category level.

Legal 500: Brækhus achieves Tier 2 placements within IP.

Managing IP 2025: Brækhus achieves Tier 3 ranking in the categories:

  • Trademark disputes
  • Trademark prosecution

IAM Patent 1000 2025: In addition to the firm’s overall rankings, Julius Berg Kaasin has received individual recognition for his work. He is highlighted as a leading IP lawyer in both Managing IP and IAM Patent 1000. Brækhus is ranked Bronze for:

  • Patent litigation and transactions

IP Stars 2025: Brækhus is ranked as a “notable firm” in the category:

  • Copyright

Collaborating with the firm’s tech department, Brækhus Advokatfirma AS handles a variety of IP matters and is singled out for its ‘ability to provide pragmatic, commercially-focused solutions across a broad range of sectors’. Julius Berg Kaasin oversees the growing practice and is praised for his ’deep knowledge and practical expertise’, combining prior in-house experience with knowledge of the establishment, enforcement, and commercialisation of IP rights.

– Legal 500

Individual Accolades for Julius Berg Kaasin

In addition to the firm’s overall rankings, Julius Berg Kaasin has received individual recognition for his work. He is highlighted as a leading and up-and-coming IP lawyer by Chambers, Legal 500, Managing IP, and IAM Patent 1000:

Ranked “Bronze” in “Enforcement and Litigation” and “Recommended” for “Prosecution and Strategy” and “Transactions”, WTR 1000 2025

In addition, Julius, as one of very few Norwegian lawyers, is highlighted by IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists 2024 and 2025, which is published annually in August.

Head of department Julius Berg Kaasin demonstrates exceptional skill across all facets of the trademark field and has successfully built a strong team. His pragmatic approach and profound understanding of the caveats of his clients’ businesses showcase his effectiveness as a lawyer. He is not just an outstanding legal professional; he is also a genuinely pleasant individual who brings a positive energy to every case

– IAM Patent 1000

Part of a Larger Initiative

In addition to Brækhus being ranked Tier 2 in Legal 500 earlier this year, and Julius Berg Kaasin achieving a number of individual placements, the team was nominated for no less than four awards at the Managing IP EMEA Awards, including:

  • Practitioner of the Year (Julius Berg Kaasin)
  • Rising Star of the Year (Anna Skovli)
  • Trade mark Firm of the Year – for the third consecutive year
  • Copyright and Design Firm of the Year – for the very first time

Teamwork at the Centre

All these recognitions are a clear result of targeted work, professional quality, and a strong team culture.

“The recognition is a result of teamwork and highlights the solid effort the team puts in every single day,” concludes Berg Kaasin.

Read more: Brækhus’ rankings

Oslo District Court overturns KFIR’s decision in ELTORQUE case

Oslo District Court overturns KFIR’s decision in ELTORQUE case

The Oslo District Court has issued a decision on Eltorque’s applications for the word mark ELTORQUE and a combined mark including the same term and a relatively simple square-shaped logo. The court, like the previous instances, found that ELTORQUE did not meet the conditions for registration for the entire list of goods and services applied for. However, it determined that the marks were sufficiently distinctive for a few more goods and services than those accepted by the Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights (KFIR), thus formally overturning the KFIR’s decision.

In 2020 Eltorque applied for registration of the word mark and combined mark ELTORQUE in Norway, covering various vehicle sand related parts in Class 7, scientific apparatus and instruments in Class 9, the sale and installation of said goods in Classes 35 and 37, and scientific and technological services in Class 42. Both the Norwegian Industrial Property Office and the KFIR rejected the applications on the ground that the marks were devoid of any distinctive character and were descriptive for some of the goods and services applied for.

Eltorque challenged both decisions before the Oslo District Court, which consolidated the cases and delivered a unified judgment on 7 June 2023.

Decision

The primary question before the court was whether the marks at issue had sufficient distinctiveness and were not descriptive for all the goods and services applied for.

The court initially noted that the average consumer would likely interpret ELTORQUE as a combination of ‘el’ (suggesting electrical power) and ‘torque’ (referring to rotational force). While ‘torque’ was a technical, specialised term, the court believed that it would be understood by consumers in the relevant market. Therefore, the court considered that the average consumer would perceive ELTORQUE as signifying ‘electrical torque’ or something powered by electricity that rotates.

The court thus found that ELTORQUE was directly descriptive of some of the goods and services covered. It pointed out that ELTORQUE was descriptive for goods related to engines in Class 7 and for valves and actuators in Class 9 because of their connection to the concept of ‘torque’. However, the court disagreed with some of the KFIR’s assessment, stating that ELTORQUE
was not descriptive for hydraulic and pneumatic actuators as they are not electrically powered. The same conclusion applied to linear actuators, which do not involve rotational movement. This meant that the KFIR’s decision was invalid and had to be overturned.

Eltorque also submitted evidence, including written customer declarations, to prove that the marks had acquired distinctiveness through use. The court dismissed this claim, partly on the ground that the affidavits were apparently authored by Eltorque’s lawyer; however, it upheld the claim for some goods in Class 7 and 9 based on Eltorque’s long-term, consistent and uniform use.


Eltorque further argued that prior registrations for ELTORQUE as a combined mark in Norway and several other countries should be considered. The court, however, determined that prior registrations alone could not establish that the mark was distinctive. It emphasised that, while the national trademark legislation is largely harmonised with EU law through the EEA Agreement, the focus should be on harmonising rules rather than individual case outcomes. In other word, prior registrations and references to EU legal sources were not sufficient to establish that ELTORQUE was distinctive in this specific case.

Nonetheless, the court allowed ELTORQUE to be registered for additional goods and services, thus overturning the KFIR’s decision.

The judgment of the Oslo District Court was appealed. However, as the statement of appeal was not submitted within the relevant deadline, the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

  • Eltorque applied to register the word mark and combined mark ELTORQUE for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 35, 37 and 42
  • Both the NIPO and the KFIR found that the marks were devoid of any distinctive character and were descriptive for some of the goods and services applied for
  • The court upheld the KFIR’s refusal for most of the goods and services but allowed registration of the marks for others