Abstract
The notion “brand image” has a broader meaning than trademark and is primarily regulated through marketing law. According to Article 10 in the Swedish Marketing Act (2008:486) (the Swedish Marketing Act or SMA), a trader may not, in marketing, make use of false claims or other statements that are misleading with regard to the trader’s own or someone else’s business. This especially applies to the trader’s own or another trader’s business qualifications, market position, commitments, trademarks, trade names, features, and other rights.
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.
An example is the decision MD 1994:25 from the Swedish Market Court.
- 2.
MD 2012:15, see about this case under Sect. 24.2.2.
- 3.
Directive 2005/29/EC 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/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’): (“Stating or otherwise creating the impression that a product can legally be sold when it cannot.”)
- 4.
In MD 2011:29, the court issued a ban against a company for selling illegal firmware for a media console. The court’s assessment was based on the fact that the actions by the infringer was constituting copyright infringement. With regard to the principle of legality, the court found that the actions were in conflict with good marketing practice, and a ban with a fine was issued.
- 5.
See, e.g., MD 1999:21, MD 2000:25 and MD 2001:16.
- 6.
See ECJ, Case C-487/07, L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd and Starion International Ltd, Rec 2009 I-5185.
- 7.
Case MD 2005:12 on snuff packages.
- 8.
In case MD 2011:17, the design of a taxicab was found to be confusingly similar with another taxi company’s known and embossed design. See, for example, MD 2008:20, MD 2007:29 and MD 2007:25.
- 9.
MD 2010:29.
- 10.
MD 2009:12.
- 11.
MD 2008:15.
- 12.
See court cases from the Swedish Market Court, inter alia, MD 1999:21 – Robinson Crisps and MD 2002:20 – Champagne; for a summary of the cases, see Sect. 24.5.1.
- 13.
In 1st chapter 10th Article the Swedish Trademark Act (the provision is commented in the following preparatory work: prop. 2009/10:225 s. 403 f. and 117 f. and in SOU 2001:26 s. 247 f.).
- 14.
Please see 1st chapter 10th Article 1st and 2nd sections of the Swedish Trademark Act.
- 15.
Bernitz et al, Immaterialrätt och otillbörlig konkurrens, Jure förlag, 12th ed., 2011, p 271 ff.
- 16.
The Court of Appeal in Stockholm of 1987 June 24.
- 17.
The claim in the case was based on § 6 section 2 in the old Swedish Trademark Act, now replaced by 1st chapter 10th Article 1 section, number 3 in the new Swedish Trademark Act.
- 18.
MD 1985:11.
- 19.
See Sect. 24.1.2 for further information on what circumstances that could constitute unfair advantage of reputation according to the Swedish Marketing Act. Svensson et al, Praktisk marknadsrätt, Norstedts Juridik, 8th ed., 2010, p 435ff.
- 20.
MD 2012:15.
- 21.
ECJ, case C-323/09, Interflora Inc. and Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc et Flowers Direct Online Ltd, ECR 2011 I-8625; ECJ, case C 278/08, Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH vs. Günther Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH, ECR 2010 I-2517; ECJ, case C-487/07, L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd and Starion International Ltd., ECR 2009 I-05185; ECJ, joint cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL, Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and Others, ECR 2010 I-2417.
- 22.
Bernitz et al., Immaterialrätt och otillbörlig konkurrens, Jure förlag, 12th edition, 2011, p. 327 f. and 412 ff.
- 23.
Uppsala District Court, case number T 2089-02.
- 24.
See ECJ, case C-120/04, Medion AG vs. Thomson multimedia Sales Germany and Austria GmbH, ECR 2005 I-8551; ECJ, case C-17/06, Céline SARL v Céline SA, ECR 2007 I-7041.
- 25.
See the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court case no 2561-2562-09 (Gucci).
- 26.
Levin, Lärobok i immaterialrätt, Norstedts juridik, 10th edition, 2011, pp. 393–396.
- 27.
Paris Convention Articles 6 and 6bis-6septies.
- 28.
Paris Convention 6bis.
- 29.
1st chapter 10th Article 1st and 3rd points and 2nd chapter 8th Article 1st point, no 3 of the Swedish Trademark Act.
- 30.
Levin, Lärobok i immaterialrätt, Norstedts juridik, 10th edition, 2011, p. 387 ff.
- 31.
Ibid pp. 396 f. and 387 ff.
- 32.
MD 2010:30.
- 33.
ECJ, case C-323/09, Interflora Inc. and Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc et Flowers Direct Online Ltd, ECR 2011 I-8625; ECJ, case C 278/08, Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH vs. Günther Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH, ECR 2010 I-2517; ECJ, Case C-487/07, L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd and Starion International Ltd, ECR 2009 I-5185; ECJ, joint cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL, Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and Others, ECR 2010 I-2417.
- 34.
Gothenburg’s District Court, case T 1889-12, MD 2010:30.
- 35.
MD 1999:21.
- 36.
MD 2002:20.
- 37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jute, A. (2014). Sweden. In: Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P. (eds) Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54000-4_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54000-4_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-53999-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54000-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)