• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Apple replacement screens for iPhones: sustainability in trademark law

25. June 2021

A ruling from the Norwegian Supreme Court fits the general debate about sustainability. Apple won against a small Norwegian workshop in a case about smartphone screens, hidden trademarks, importation and de-branding instead of destruction- repairing for sustainability.

Apple Ersatz Bildschirme

Refurbished mobile phones – sustainability

Not only in Germany does the issue of sustainability dominate many debates, from politics to economics to “green finance”. With an interesting ruling from the Norwegian Supreme Court this week, the topic of sustainability has now also reached trademark law.

At the centre is a trademark dispute between Apple and a small Norwegian mobile phone repair shop. In this workshop, mobile phones are “overhauled”, defective batteries or screens are replaced and the repaired used mobile phones are resold, all in the spirit of sustainability.

Import of iPhone screens from China to Norway

The trademark dispute arose when the workshop imported replacement screens for iPhones that were not manufactured by Apple but nevertheless bore the Apple logo. The screens were imported from China to the Norwegian workshop. The Norwegian workshop described these screens as refurbished, that they were pulled from old phones for resale. The Apple logos were covered by the Norwegian workshop with a marker and then built into the mobile phone.

Apple saw this as a trademark infringement and sued the small mobile phone repair shop in Norway – through all instances in Norway, so that now the Norwegian Supreme Court decided.

The decisive question was whether there was a trademark-like use or a threat to the trademark function (namely the guarantee of origin and quality). This was not easy to answer, as the Apple logo had been covered with a marker and the logo was no longer visible to the consumer anyway, as soon as the screen had been installed in the “refurbished” iPhone as part of the repair.

Supreme Court of Norway: Mitsubishi decision of the ECJ

For its decision, the Norwegian Supreme Court also referred to the Mitsubishi decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ, C-129/17), in which the ECJ had ruled in 2018, much noted, that the trademark owner can oppose rebranding – in the Mitsubishi case also in the case that the original trademark had been permanently removed.

This is interesting in that Norway is not a member of the EU, but an infringement under § 4 of the Norwegian Trademark Act was compared with Article 5 of the EU Trademark Directive (89/104/EC). Basically, this ruling confirmed that “use” of a trade mark in Norwegian law is the same as the corresponding requirement in EU trade mark law.

The Norwegian Supreme Court found, in relation to the Apple screens, that the owner of a trade mark cannot have less protection in a situation where his trade mark has been obscured or covered than in a situation such as the Mitsubishi case, where the trade mark has been permanently removed.

Workshops are decisive, not the consumers

In addition, although the covered Apple logo is not visible to consumers after installation, it is visible to the workshop carrying out the installation. Therefore, the assessment had to be made in relation to the mobile phone repair shops and not in relation to the consumers, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled. And under this reference, the screens are to be seen as infringing Apple’s trademark, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled (decision of 2 June 2021, HR-2020-1142-A). The offending imported iPhone screens are destroyed.

Sustainability irrelevant in trademark infringement

The Norwegian Court itself took up the claim of sustainability in its judgement. But the need to create a market for repairs and spare parts from the point of view of sustainability was irrelevant in relation to the trade mark infringement at hand, the Court ruled. Furthermore, the Court added that the Trademark Act does not prevent the import of non-original spare parts compatible with iPhones – as long as these parts do not use Apple’s trademarks.

However, a classic de-branding – instead of an otherwise required destruction – will rather no longer be possible in Norway after this ruling.

Would you also like to protect or defend your trademark?

Our lawyers have many years of expertise in trademark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you before any court – in Germany and internationally.
Please feel free to contact us if you are interested.

Sources: 

The Register, 4. June 2021

Image:

DariuszSankowski | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconApple,  Apple screens,  de-branding,  Import,  iPhone screens,  judgement Norway,  judgement Supreme Court Norway,  Mitsubishi,  Norway,  re-branding,  refurbished,  refurbished mobile phones,  replacement screens,  spare parts workshop,  Supreme Court Norway,  sustainability,  sustainability trademark law,  workshop for mobile phones

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.