Sweden Country Report

Case Report:
Topic:	Domain name dispute
Who:	Volvo Car Corporation v. SCT Scandinavian Car Tuning
When:	January 2001
Where:	Sweden
What happened:	Swedish car manufacturer Volvo Car Corporation filed a suit against a Swedish company SCT specialised in tuning Volvo cars. Volvo claimed that SCT should be prohibited from using the word Volvo in its domain name "volvo-tuning.com" since the use constitutes an infringement of Volvos rights to its trademark and the trade name. SCT argued in its defence that the use of the domain name did not constitute an infringement since the domain name is merely an address and the use of the word Volvo in the domain name should consequently not be considered as use of the trademark or the trade name. The district court found that the use of a domain name containing a specific trademark in marketing constitutes use of that trademark. The court further found that even if a company under certain conditions is allowed to use a trademark such use must be in accordance with honest practices in commercial matters. Even if SCT has a right to use the trademark Volvo in order to indicate the nature of its services this right does not include the right to use Volvo in the domain name. The fact that SCT put disclaimer on its webpage was irrelevant. The District Court came to the conclusion that SCT had infringed Volvos right to its trademark by using the domain name "volvo-tuning.com". SCT was prohibited from using the trademark VOLVO in its domain name. The court also ordered SCT to deregister the domain name.
Comments:	This is probably the first domain name dispute to be settled by a Swedish Court. Since a District Court decided this case its value as precedence can be questioned and the law regarding domain name disputes still needs to be clarified. It is also interesting to note that Volvo choose to have the case tried in court instead of using the WIPO system for the settlement of domain name disputes.
Case Report:
Topic:	Protection of designs
Who:	Lundgren & Strandberg v. ICB
When:	May 2001
Where:	Swedish Marketing Court, Stockholm
What happened:	This case concerned the question whether the electric candlestick called "Elflugan" (The Firefly) was protected by the Marketing Act. In 1993 two Swedish designers made the first prototype of an electric candlestick. The lamp constitutes of a base with 23 long thin tubes with a small lamp bulb in the top. Each stick is of different length and when lit the lamp gives the impression of fireflies. This lamp was an instant success and it was sold in design stores at approximately EUR 200. In the Autumn of 1998 the first copy was found in the Swedish market sold at approximately EUR 20. The designers file a suit against the importer claiming that the sale of the copy was in violation of the marketing act. The Marketing Act contains a provision on marketing that is misleading as of a products commercial origin. In order for a product to obtain such protection the product must be distinctive well known on the market. The court found that the design of the Firefly was clearly distinct and that since it has been widely noticed in media it qualified for protection under the Marketing Act. The Court found that since the copies differed very little from the original there was a clear risk of confusion o the market and that the copies therefore were misleading imitations in violation of the Marketing Act. The importer was prohibited from continuing the marketing of the copies.
Comments:	The case is a step forward in the protection of industrial designs and it shows that the Marketing Act can be used to fight counterfeiters. However one must bear in mind that the Marketing Act only protects products that are well known on the market. This means that it might be difficult to protect new products in this way.