The Norwegian Supreme Court rejected a claim of trademark for “ROUTE 66” involving certain goods and services linked to tourism.
The court issued its ruling in November, but it came to light this week from a report by World Trademark Review.
The high court overturned rulings by a Norwegian district court and appeals court that said the “ROUTE 66” trademark registration was valid.
The Supreme Court had to rule whether “ROUTE 66” was associated with a geographic place and whether the characteristics of products bearing that name would be associated with such a place.
The court:
— Ruled Route 66, though it is a long stretch of road, is a geographic place and could be sought by travelers, even though U.S. 66 was decertified decades ago, Citing European Union intellectual property guidelines, the high court said Route 66 remains a place like Bombay and Burma, though both have been renamed.
— Ruled “ROUTE 66” would be viewed by an average Norwegian as a description of the products and services at issue.
— Ruled the so-called “ROUTE 66” trademark might be associated with the real Route 66.
Unfortunately, I’ve found no background in the article or the Norwegian Supreme Court summary about the company that tried to trademark “ROUTE 66” or what it was trying to sell. Because the court in essence ruled the trademark had no tangible link to the road, it probably was a company trying to sell more stuff by using a name well-known in pop culture.
Regardless of the details, the rejection of a “ROUTE 66” trademark is good news for companies in Norway that are trying to sell products or tours associated with the Mother Road.
Route 66 trademark controversies pop up from time to time. in 2010, Tempting Brands made such a trademark claim in the Netherlands, and the website still is active at route66.tm.
In the 1990s, Robert Groeneveld, also of the Netherlands, applied for a trademark of Route 66 in Europe and tried to get businesses along the Mother Road to pay a fee — apparently to little success.
American businesses are safe from such claims, because “Route 66” and the image of the Route 66 shield are in the public domain. Therefore, no one in the United States can make a trademark claim on it.
As for the rest of the globe, it varies from country to country. Caveat emptor.
(Image of an Arizona Route 66 shield on a pole in Williams, Arizona, by Gabriel Millos via Flickr)
The company in the article regarding the Norwegian high court’s ruling is Tempting Brand AG, a swiss company.
Thank you, Trond. I figured someone from Norway would know.
The European Union has its claws into so many parts of life that it is hard to know where it stops. But Norway is not part of the EU, so why is its Supreme Court citing EU intellectual property guidelines?
For example, regarding the Eifel Tower in Paris, France, “the impressive lights that illuminate the attraction at night are technically an art work, so ‘reproducing’ requires the permission of the artist.” Since when is taking a two dimensional photo of something ‘reproducing’ it? And what about New Year’s Eve when it is the focal point of celebrations in Paris?
Further quotes from a Daily Mail article:
“While the EU’s 2001 information society directive says photographs of architectural works in public spaces can be taken free of charge, the clause is optional.
Countries including Italy, Belgium and France opted out of transposing it into national law.
‘The lightshow is protected by copyright,’ Dimitar Dimitrov, a policy expert for the European Wikimedia chapters in Brussels, said.
On its website, the Eiffel Tower confirms that uses of photographs are subject to certain restrictions.
‘Daytime views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free,’ it reads.
‘However, its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights.
Many buildings across Europe are protected by copyright. Tourists must ask permission from the copyright holder to share their photographs in a public forum.
In Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovenia, for example, it is fine to take photos of public buildings so long as the images are not sold.
Meanwhile, in the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany, tourists are free to take and share photos of public buildings for any reason.” And the EU is supposed to be a single trans-national union.
Another absurdity, from the Eifel Tower webpage: “For the submission of the third and final application file of Paris’ bid for the 2024 Olympics Games, the Eiffel Tower was adorned with Olympic colors on Friday, February 3rd. This illumination allowed Paris 2024 Organizing Committee to present the slogan of the Parisian bid: ‘Made for Sharing’ ” Yes! Made for sharing! Look, but no photos please..
Common sense says if you put up a building in a public space and illuminate it at night, then it cannot be subject to copyright laws. What we have with the Eifel Tower and the Norwegian and Dutch people is just a way of making money from something when there is no way that demands for payment should be allowed.
Do not forget that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from the people of France to the people of the United States and was designed by French sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi. So that makes it a ‘work of art’. And it was built by Gustave Eiffel, whose tower was said to have been only a temporary structure, as part of the 1889 World’s Fair. Hence its nuts-and-bolts construction.
Based on my journalism experience, the Norwegian high court cited EU because courts in general like legal and well-established precedent.
It’s why U.S. courts still will cite longstanding law from British courts on occasion. Court do not like issuing new rules unless there’s a compelling and immediate need to do so.
Thanks Ron. But I think that the whole so-called “intellectual property” field has been expanded in recent years for one reason only: to make money at no cost to the recipients. For example taking pictures of the Eifel Tower at night for sale, or even putting them on social media sites. No one made the Eifel Tower company light the tower at night, and if the lighting includes advertising then the company is already making money from it.
Fortunately the USA – money driven as it often is – has not taken this greedy route.
I think the intellectual-property field has been expanded not because of greed, but because creators were obviously getting ripped off and had been for years. Perhaps the laws were expanded too broadly, but I cannot fault their intent.
Perhaps, but there is no excuse for saying taking a picture of a three dimensional structure or building is equal to reproducing it. As a Scotsman said long ago, “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft a-gley”,
I think this is good news. Ron is right: intellectual property rights have expanded because creators and publishers, who deserve to be paid for their work, have been getting ripped off, largely through Internet piracy. On the other hand, however, Tempting Brands did not create the Federal Shield for US Highways or the Route 66 designation. If that logo “belongs” to anyone, it belongs to the American people because it was our own Bureau of Public Roads that created it. This copyright business just sounds like a greedy grab by a corporation that has no legitimate claim to it. Let it remain in the hands of its only rightful trustees, the promoters of the road.