Abstract
Intellectual property rights (IPR) have a major importance in the modern economy and are often a prerequisite for the dynamic development of culture, technology, and economic prosperity. Naturally, the holding of IPR brings economic value, and the rights are accordingly regarded as vital organisational assets. As the economy has evolved into the state it is known today, with all the digital aspects thereof, the need for protection persists—perhaps even to an increasingly significant extent. Thus, organisations today have a need to protect their IPRs and their brands overall, for instance in the context of on- and offline distribution and after-sales services. Quite intuitively, the warranted protection may not be too expansive since the unlimited protection of IPR inevitably would restrict free competition and interfere with consumers’ interests. The need to strike a fair balance between, on one hand, the interests of right holders and, on the other hand, the interests of the consumers and the functioning of the markets is therefore paramount. This chapter will briefly address these issues in light of Swedish law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
S. Wolk, Immaterialrätten då, nu och i framtiden, Svensk Juristtidning 2016, p. 130.
- 2.
Article 118(1) TFEU.
- 3.
Article 4(3) TEU.
- 4.
M. Bobek, The effects of EU law in the national legal systems. In Barnard and Peers (eds), European Union Law, Oxford University Press 2014, p. 153.
- 5.
U. Bernitz, L. Pehrson, J. Rosén and C. Sandgren, Immaterialrätt och otillbörlig konkurrens, Jure 2017, p. 1.
- 6.
SOU 1956:25. Upphovsmannarätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk, p. 85.
- 7.
Instrument of Government (1974:152), 2 Chap. 16 section.
- 8.
Prop. 1975/76:209. Om ändring i regeringsformen, p. 129.
- 9.
U. Bernitz and A. Kjellgren, Europarättens grunder, 4th ed, Norstedts juridik 2010, p. 396.
- 10.
See Act on Patent and Market Courts (2016:188), 1 Chap. 3 section.
- 11.
SOU 1994:14. Konsumentpolitik i en ny tid, p. 148.
- 12.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ 2000/C 364/01.
- 13.
Directive 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450, Directives 97/7, 98/27 and 2002/65 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2005 L 149/22.
- 14.
Directive 2006/114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, OJ 2006 L 376/21.
- 15.
Marketing Act (2008:486), 1 section.
- 16.
U. Bernitz, Europarättens genomslag, Norstedts juridik 2012, p. 321.
- 17.
Marketing Act (2008:486), 47 section.
- 18.
Directive 2008/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2009 to Approximate the Laws of the Member States Relating to Trade Marks, OJ 2008 L 299/25.
- 19.
Trademarks Act (2010:1877), 1 Chap. 6-8 sections.
- 20.
ECJ, case 63/97, Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v Ronald Karel Deenik, ECR 1999 I-905.
- 21.
ECJ, case 228/03, The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, ECR 2005 I-2337.
- 22.
U. Bernitz, L. Pehrson, J. Rosén and C. Sandgren, Immaterialrätt och otillbörlig konkurrens, Jure 2017, p. 295.
- 23.
Directive 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450, Directives 97/7, 98/27 and 2002/65 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2005 L 149/22.
- 24.
ECJ, case 487/07, L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd och Starion International Ltd., ECR 2009 I-5185.
- 25.
Ibid, para 44.
- 26.
Act on Market Court and More (1970:417), 1 section.
- 27.
S. Arnerstål, Varumärkesanvändning, Norstedts juridik 2018, p. 214.
- 28.
Judgment of the Swedish Market Court of 11 December 2012, case MD 2012:15, Elskling AB v Kundkraft Sverige AB.
- 29.
CJEU, joined cases C-236/08, C-237-08 and C-238/08, Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08), Google France SARL v Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL (C-237/08) and Google France SARL v Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and others (C-238/08), ECR 2010 I-2417.
- 30.
Judgment of the Swedish Market Court of 11 December 2012, reference MD 2012:15, Elskling AB v Kundkraft Sverige AB, paras 113–117.
- 31.
Prop. 1970:57. Förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (1970:412) om otillbörlig marknadsföring m.m., p. 90 and prop. 1994/95:123. Ny marknadsföringslag, p. 56.
- 32.
See e.g. judgments of the Swedish Market Court references MD 1983:3, MD 1983:23 and MD 1985:4.
- 33.
Prop. 1994/95:123, pp. 59, 168.
- 34.
M. Levin, Kommentar till 14 section marknadsföringslagen, Karnov 2018.
- 35.
See e,g, judgments of the Swedish Market Court references MD 1974:5 and MD 2006:3.
- 36.
S. Arnerstål, Varumärkesanvändning, Norstedts Juridik 2018, p. 170.
- 37.
L. Pehrson, Varumärken från konsumentsynpunkt, Liber 1981, p. 338.
- 38.
U. Bernitz, U & A. Kjellgren, Europarättens grunder, 4th ed., Norstedts juridik 2010, p. 356.
- 39.
ECJ, case 173/98, Sebago Inc. and Ancienne Maison Dubois & Fils SA v G-B Unic SA, ECR 1999 I-4103.
- 40.
ECJ, case 355/96, Silhouette International Schmied v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft, ECR 1998 I-4799, pt 31.
- 41.
ECJ, case 244/00, Van Doren + Q. GmbH v Lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Michael Orth, ECR 2003 I-3051.
- 42.
Ibid, pt 42.
- 43.
Prop. 1992/93:56. Ny konkurrenslagstiftning, p. 70.
- 44.
Ibid, p. 71.
- 45.
Judgment of the Swedish Market Court of 16 April 1998, reference MD 1998:5, Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (Stim) v TV3 Broadcasting Group Ltd.
- 46.
S. Arnerstål, Varumärkesanvändning, Norstedts juridik 2018, p. 65.
- 47.
ECJ, case 206/01, Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed, ECR 2002 I-10273.
- 48.
Ibid, para 48.
- 49.
SOU 1958:10. Förslag till varumärkeslag, p. 73.
- 50.
Ibid, p. 48.
- 51.
S. Arnerstål, Varumärkesanvändning, Norstedts juridik 2018, p. 77.
- 52.
SOU 1958:10. Förslag till varumärkeslag, p. 48.
- 53.
Ibid, p. 135.
- 54.
Prop. 2009/10:225. Ny varumärkeslag och ändringar i firmalagen, p. 119.
- 55.
Judgment of the Swedish Supreme Court of 9 July 2014, reference NJA 2014 s. 580, Layher AB v Mon.Zon Sverige AB, para 15.
- 56.
Ibid, para 20.
- 57.
S. Arnerstål, Varumärkesanvändning, Norstedts juridik 2018, p.106.
- 58.
See further in Sect. 24.3.7 below.
- 59.
Judgment of the Swedish Market Court of 4 December 2012, reference MD 2012:3, Sveriges Bildelsgrossisters förening v KIA Motors Sweden AB.
- 60.
Ibid, para 195.
- 61.
Commission Regulation 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ L 102/1 and Commission Regulation 461/2010 of 27 May 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ 2010 L 129/52.
- 62.
Judgment of the Swedish Market Court of 4 December 2012, reference MD 2012:3, Sveriges Bildelsgrossisters förening v KIA Motors Sweden AB, para 213.
- 63.
Ibid, paras 219–220.
- 64.
Report of the Swedish Competition Authority, 2017:2, Konkurrens och tillväxt på digitala marknader, p. 60.
- 65.
CJEU, case C-230/16, Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2017:941, pt 10.
- 66.
Ibid, pt 24.
- 67.
Ibid, pt 25 and ECJ, case 59/08, Copad SA v Christian Dior couture SA, Vincent Gladel and Société industrielle lingerie (SIL), ECR 2009 I-03421, pts 24-26.
- 68.
CJEU, case C-230/16, Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2017:941, pts 28-29.
- 69.
Ibid, pt 58.
- 70.
S. Arnerstål, Varumärkesanvändning, Norstedts juridik 2018, p. 80.
- 71.
CJEU, case C-46/10, Viking Gas A/S v Kosan Gas A/S, ECR 2011 I-6161.
- 72.
Ibid, pt 34.
- 73.
Ibid, pt 31.
- 74.
S. Arnerstål, Varumärkesanvändning, Norstedts juridik 2018, p. 185.
- 75.
Judgement of the Stockholm District Court of 15 June 2012, reference T 17919-09, Soda-Club BV v Vikingsoda AB.
- 76.
CJEU, case C-46/10, Viking Gas A/S v Kosan Gas A/S, ECR 2011 I-6161.
- 77.
Decision of the Swedish Competition Authority of 2 March 2012, reference 632/2009.
- 78.
Product Liability Act (1992,18), 5 section.
- 79.
Council Directive 85/374 of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, OJ 1985 L 210.
- 80.
J. Hellner and M. Radetzki, Skadeståndsrätt, 9th ed, Norstedts juridik 2014, pp. 292–293.
- 81.
Product Liability Act (1992:18), 8 section.
- 82.
SOU 2017:22. Från värdekedja till värdecykel – så får Sverige en mer cirkulär ekonomi, pp. 181–182.
- 83.
B. Dufwa, Produktansvar, FSAB:s Förlag 1975, p. 38.
- 84.
J. Hellner and M. Radetzki, Skadeståndsrätt, 9th ed, Norstedts juridik 2014, p. 301.
- 85.
SOU 2017:22. Från värdekedja till värdecykel – så får Sverige en mer cirkulär ekonomi, p. 181.
- 86.
Ibid, p. 146.
- 87.
Judgment of the Swedish Supreme Court of 15 June 2000, reference NJA 2000 s. 292, Riksåklagaren v TO.
- 88.
CJEU, case C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp., ECLI:EU:C:2012:407.
- 89.
Directive 2009/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ 2009 L 111/16.
- 90.
Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ 2001 L 167/10.
- 91.
CJEU, case C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, ECLI:EU:C:2014:25, pt 23.
- 92.
Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ 2001 L 167/10, Recitals 28-29. Also see CJEU, case C-419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright, ECLI:EU:C:2015:27, pts 35-37.
- 93.
CJEU, case C-406/10, SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2012:259, pt 61.
- 94.
S. Wolk, Datorprogramalster i upphovsrätten, Iustus 2016, p. 137.
- 95.
Patent Act (1967:837), 3 section 3(3) para.
- 96.
Report of the Swedish Competition Authority, 2017:2, Konkurrens och tillväxt på digitala marknader, p. 61.
- 97.
Regulation 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations 2006/2004 and 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22, OJ 2018 LI 60/1, Article 1(1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Spjuth, J., Zeitlin, M. (2019). Sweden. In: Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P. (eds) Liability for Antitrust Law Infringements & Protection of IP Rights in Distribution. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17550-4_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17550-4_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17549-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17550-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)