Interchangeable marks

When the Norwegian Industrial property Office (NIPO) assesses whether two marks are likely to be confused, we assess whether the marks are similar to each other and whether the marks apply to similar goods/services. The decisive factor is whether the consumer will be able to mistake the brands in a buying situation or believe that the products come from the same manufacturer. We only consider whether the trademark can be confused with already registered trademarks. We do not investigate whether the trademark can be confused with other company names, other business characteristics or unregistered, incorporated trademark rights.

Owners of such signs can, however, make an objection, which NIPO must take into account, and which may result in a refusal or the trademark being deleted.

When assessing whether two characteristics are similar, we decide on:

• whether the marks look similar visually

• whether the brands sound similar when pronounced

• whether the brands give similar associations

We also decide how distinctive the older brand is. If someone sticks closely to a very special brand, it doesn't take much for consumers to mistake the brands.

On the other hand, two weaker brands will more often be able to coexist. For example, we do not believe that consumers would mistake the brands KNASKEBRØD and HOLIDAY BREAD, applied for baked goods, just because the brands have the word BRØD in common.

When assessing whether the marks apply to similar goods and services, we take a position on a number of different considerations. We consider, for example, whether the relevant goods or services:

• have the same purpose
• sold through the same channels
• are in competition with each other
• and a number of other, relevant considerations

The goods and services for which a mark is registered are placed in a class system of 45 classes. Each class has a heading that basically describes the types of goods and services included in this class.

We use a tool called a "cross-examination list" when we assess whether goods and services included in different classes are similar.

Please note the following:

• Any similarity between goods in the same class does not appear in the cross-examination list.
• The list is not exhaustive, it is only indicative.

Below are some real-life examples of interchangeability.

The marks relate to the same goods, namely watches.

• Visual similarity: Both marks will be perceived as consisting of the letters P and L, placed on top of each other.
• Pronunciation similarity: Both will be read as PL or LP.
• Image: The letters in this case do not give any specific image. The image thus speaks neither for nor against confusion.

Result: Likelihood of confusion.

The goods “wine” and “alcoholic beverages” are the same, and the marks therefore cover the same goods.

• Visual similarity: Visually, there are clear similarities between the ways in which the circles are designed.
• Pronunciation similarity: Since the similarity consists of a figurative element, the marks cannot be compared pronunciation-wise.
• Conceptual image: The marks provide similar conceptual images, since both show a circular brushstroke of approximately the same thickness and shape.
• The text ORIGIUM 1944 in the oldest is perceived as information that the wine producer started its business in 1944, and does not prevent confusion.

Result: Likelihood of confusion.

The marks apply to the same goods.

• Visual similarity: The marks have visual differences due to the use of different letters; X and C, as well as the letter E, are designed in a special way.
• Pronunciation similarity: The marks will be pronounced exactly the same, namely SEON, which creates a high degree of similarity.
• Image: Neither CEON nor XEON means anything, and the marks therefore do not create any image that can prevent confusion.

Result: Likelihood of confusion (because the marks will be pronounced exactly the same).

If someone has a trademark that is confusingly similar to yours, you can contact the owner and ask for consent to register your trademark.

You cannot get your trademark registered if it infringes someone else's right to a trademark, company name or other business characteristic.

When NIPO receives a trademark application, we investigate whether the trademark can be confused with already registered trademarks. If this is the case, we must reject the application.

• For you as an applicant, this means that someone else is standing in the way of you being able to obtain a trademark right
• For those who already have a right, this is a protection against others registering a trademark that is too close to theirs

Check for yourself whether the trademark is available in our trademark register.