Norway. Title: Inger Ørstavik. Date: 28 March Questions. Yes. Yes. Criteria: basis? claim made. infringing his IPR.

Transcription

1 Question Q219 National Group: Norway Title: Injunctionss in cases of infringement of IPRs Contributors: Anne Marie Sejersted Inger Ørstavik Amund Brede Svendsen Reporter within Working Committee: Anne Marie Sejersted Date: 28 March 2011 Questions I. Analysis of current law and case law The Groups are invited to answer the following questions underr their national laws: Availability: 1. Are injunctions for infringement off an IPR available on a provisional/preliminary basis? Yes. 2. Are injunctions for infringement off an IPR available on a permanent basis? Yes. Criteria: 3. If yes to question 1, what are the criteria for the grant of an injunction on a provisional/ /preliminary basis? The first and most important criterion for the grant of a preliminary injunction is established in the Norwegian Dispute Act: An interim measure can only be granted if the claim made by the petitioner and the basis for security are a proven on a balance of probabilities. This means that the court must find that it is more probable than not that the proprietor of the IPR will succeed in the main proceedings. In other words,, the proprietor must prove that t it is more probable than not that the alleged infringer is infringing his IPR. 1

2 Secondly, according to the Norwegian Disputes Act, the court may only grant a preliminary/interim injunction (midlertidig forføyning), when one of these two criteria are met: a) The defendant s conduct makes it necessary to provisionally secure the claim because the action or execution of the claim would otherwise be considerably impeded, or b) The court finds it necessary to make a temporary arrangement in a disputed legal issue in order to avert considerable loss or inconvenience In IPR infringement matters the alleged infringer regularly argues that it is not necessary to provisionally secure the claim with a preliminary injunction. The argument is based on the fact that the proprietor of the intellectual property right shall be awarded monetary damages if he succeeds in the main action, and that there is thus no reason to secure the claim with a preliminary injunction in anticipation of the main action. This argument is to be assessed on a case-to-case basis. However, the Supreme Court has established some guidelines in the Mein Kampf-decision (Rt p. 1165). A publishing house published a Norwegian translation of Adolf Hitler s book Mein Kampf. The Norwegian translation was, however, subject to copyright, and the heir of the translator had not given permission to the publishing house to use the Norwegian translation. For ideological and personal reason, the heir refused to give such permission. The heir lodged an application for a preliminary injunction, claiming that all sales should be stopped until the claim was decided in the main proceedings. By a majority of 2 to 1 Appeal Court found that criterion a) was not fulfilled, as that would imply a pre-emptive enforcement of the claim. The minority of the Appeal Court dissented, stating that: If the publishers are not instructed to cease the distribution of the book, the copyright infringement will in substantial extent be carried out before the main action is legally enforceable. The execution of [the proprietor s] claim that the translation shall not be used or spread will, according to the minority s opinion, be considerably impeded if the translation is in fact spread The Supreme Court s Appeal Committee affirmed the minority s statement. Also in relation to other IPR s, such as patents, the Norwegian courts have given the above considerations substantial weight. The Norwegian Supreme Court has also in an older decision, Rt p. 124 (Dumex), stated even though the alleged patent infringement would only cause monetary damages to the proprietor, and that the infringer doubtless would be able to pay the potential damages, the execution of the claim would still be considerably impeded. This is in later decisions interpreted as the right conferred by a patent can not be reduced to a mere economical right. This is, however, not a universal consideration. In a later Supreme Court decision, Rt p (Transport cases), the alleged infringer had been on the market for 9 years. The Supreme Court held that monetary damages would be sufficient if the proprietor succeeded in the main proceeding, and that the criteria for a preliminary 2

3 injunction were not met. This underlines that the criterion must be decided in a case-tocase basis. As a result of this, the fact that the proprietor would be entitled to monetary damages if successful in the main proceedings is not necessarily sufficient to dismiss a claim from the proprietor that the criteria (a) is met. The execution of the claim could still be considerably impeded. Criterion b) is of less interest in cases regarding IPR infringements, but may be used in special situations. We will not elaborate further on this criterion. Thirdly, the court must find that granting the interim measure must not cause loss or inconvenience to the defendant which is clearly disproportionate to the interests of the petitioner in the interim measure being granted. In addition to the criteria above, the court may decide that a preliminary injunction shall only become effective if the petitioner provides such security as may be determined by the court for any compensation to the defendant for which the petitioner may be found liable. The alleged infringer will regularly raise a claim for such security, and the court will although this is at the court s discretion most often set security as a criterion for the preliminary injunction to be effective. If the alleged infringement merely will cause monetary damages to the proprietor, the court may at its discretion find that the alleged infringer may provide security for the claim, and thus prevent a preliminary injunction although the criteria in other respects are met. These criteria apply to all types of claims, and are thus not limited to preliminary injunctions in matters regarding infringement of IPR. 4. If yes to question 2, what are the criteria for the grant of an injunction on a permanent basis? Under Norwegian law, the general civil procedural rules ensure that the proprietor may obtain a permanent injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement of an intellectual property right (forbudssanksjon). The right to obtain a permanent injunction is at the core of the rights granted to IPR proprietors. In patent infringement cases, a permanent injunction will be granted if the patent holder succeeds in his claim that the defendant is infringing the patent-in-suit. The right to obtain a permanent injunction prohibiting the continuation is not explicitly laid down in statutory provisions. However, the right to obtain an injunction lies within the wording of the Patent Act, which states that the exclusive right conferred by a patent shall... imply that no one but the patent holder may, without his consent exploit the patented invention. There are thus no statutory requirements for obtaining a permanent injunction, apart from succeeding with a claim that the defendant is infringing. 3

4 The same principle that the right to an injunction is derived from the statutory provisions which ensures the proprietor an exclusive right also applies to trade mark (and geographical indication) infringements, design infringements, and copyright infringements. The four-factor test as set out in ebay v. Merc-Exchange does not have a counterpart in Norwegian law as regards permanent injunctions, see question 17. For time-limited IPRs, such as patents, the injunction is often explicitly limited to the duration of the patent (and SPC). However, it is generally assumed that if the court has granted an injunction without specifying the expiry date, the injunction will lapse when the protection time has expired. For IPRs which are not time-limited, such as trade marks, the injunction will regularly be perpetual. However, if the trade mark proprietor later relinquishes his right, the prohibition laid down in the injunction will regularly also lapse. There is also an access for the proprietor to obtain an injunction aimed at prohibiting acts which are not yet initiated, but most likely or certainly will occur in the future. 5. If not addressed in answering questions 3 and 4, does the criteria for the grant of an injunction differ depending on whether the injunction sought is on a provisional/preliminary or permanent basis? If so, how? The criteria for the grant of an injunction differ depending on whether the injunction sought is on a preliminary or permanent basis. We refer to questions 3 and Are the criteria for the grant of an injunction equally applicable to infringement of all IPRs? Yes, at least in principle, the criteria for the grant of an injunction both preliminary and permanent are equally applicable to infringement if the IPRs this question aims to study, i.e. patents, trade marks, copyright and designs. However we would mention that where the question is one of copyright infringement, the issue of freedom of expression or freedom of speech seems to be coming up more often than used to be the case. The defendant in such cases often argues that a preliminary injunction against a disputed copyright infringement will amount to precensorship, and that such a drastic measure requires an especially clear foundation in law. He will also argue that the seriousness of the drastic measure of setting aside a fundamental right such as the freedom of expression should be taken into account when assessing the need for an interim measure and when considering the proportionality of it. In a Supreme Court decision in 2007, it was found that a refusal to grant a preliminary injunction to stop a national TV broadcast was justified on these grounds. The criteria for granting an injunction for infringement of other IPRs, such as trade secrets and trade dress, may in some cases be slightly different from the above mentioned criteria. However, this is addressed in Q215 and explicitly excepted from this question. 4

5 7. If no to 6, are there any specific criteria or considerations for the grant of an injunctions for particular IPRs? If so, what criteria apply and to which IPRs? See question Are there any specific criteria or considerations for particular subject matter, for example, pharmaceutical patents? If so, what criteria or considerations apply to what subject matter? Permanent injunctions will normally be available to all proprietors of infringed IPRs within the scope of this question, i.e. patents, trade marks, copyright and designs. Thus, there are no particular considerations which apply to different subject matters. However, with regard to preliminary injunctions, there may be different considerations for particular subject matters. In particular, we refer to the criteria (a) in Question 1 above, regarding whether it is necessary to provisionally secure the claim because the action or execution of the claim would otherwise be considerably impeded. As stated above, this criterion is to be assessed by the court on a case-to-case basis. In some alleged infringements, such as trade marks infringements in certain cases, monetary damages will be genuinely sufficient to compensate the trade mark holder for infringement. This may be the case if the alleged infringer will not cause any reputational or economical damage to the proprietor, and the proprietor will only claim damages equal to a reasonable licence fee for the use of the identical or similar trade mark. The criteria for granting a preliminary injunction will thus not necessarily be fulfilled. In other areas, such as, for example, pharmaceutical patents, the subsequent monetary damages may be clearly insufficient to fully compensate the patent holder for infringement. Thus, the considerations when deciding whether the criteria for a preliminary injunction are met may be influenced by the subject matter. 9. Are there any specific considerations relevant to particular IP holders, for example, NPEs? If so, what considerations are relevant and to what IPR holders? Whether there are specific considerations relevant for particular IP holders, such as the availability of injunctions in infringement cases brought by non-producing patent holders or patent trolls, has not been an issue of particular relevance in Norway in relation to patents, trade marks, copyright or designs. However, if the proprietor of a patent does not utilize or have any plans to utilize his patent, the criteria for obtaining a preliminary injunction may not be met. We refer to question 4 for further comments as regards to this. The considerations have however been relevant in domain names cases, where so called domain sharks have been registering domain names with the only rationale to sell these to trade mark or business name proprietors. However, domain name issues being outside the scope of this question, we will not elaborate further. 5

6 Discretion: 10. Is there any element of judicial discretion in relation to the grant of an injunction for infringement of IPRs? If so, how does the discretion apply? As regards preliminary injunctions, there is an element of discretion as regards the content of the injunction. Firstly, a general rule on proportionality applies. The relevant provision in the Disputes Act sets out that an interim injunction is not to be granted in cases where the damage or disadvantage it would cause to the defendant is clearly disproportionate to the interest that the claimant has in obtaining the injunction. Secondly, when granting an injunction, the court should set out the measures it finds are necessary in the circumstances. The court may give instructions about how the injunction should be implemented. In the case of final injunctions, there is no element of judicial discretion, in the sense that if the owner of an IP right has requested that the court should order the infringer to discontinue infringing the right, and the court has found that the IP right is infringed, the court can hardly avoid granting the request for reasons of substantive law. 11. Are there any circumstances in which a court must grant an injunction for infringement of an IPR? If so, in what circumstances? Yes, see the last paragraph in our answer to Question Are there any circumstances where infringement of an IPR is proved and no permanent injunction is available? If so, in what circumstances? Yes. No (permanent) injunction is available if the infringed IPR has expired when the judicial decision is returned. Scope: 13. Is an injunction granted only against named parties to the infringement proceeding, or is an injunction available more broadly against potential infringers such as customers or manufacturers who are not parties to the proceeding? An injunction is only granted against named parties to the infringement proceeding. One exception to the rule is that of interim injunctions instructing the Norwegian customs authorities to withhold goods that infringe IPRs and to refuse to release them to the owner/addressee. A right owner may request such an injunction of the courts on the grounds of a suspicion or anticipation of attempts to import certain infringing goods (which he should describe, so that Customs may identify them) into Norway, and unknown parties are then indicated as defendants. From the moment that goods are actually identified and held back in Customs, their owner/addressee will be a defendant in the case. 6

7 14. Is there a specific form of words used by your courts to describe the scope of the grant of an injunction? If so, what is the 'formula'? There is no specific form or words. A typical example of an injunction is: NN is restrained from manufacturing, offering for sale and distributing the products XYZ, and from importing or possessing products XYZ for the purpose of offering them for sale or distributing them in Norway. 15. Is the grant of an injunction referable to the item(s) alleged to infringe the relevant IPR, or may the grant of an injunction be broader in scope? If it may be broader, what is the permissible scope of the injunction? The grant of an injunction is referable to the items that infringe the IPR in question or that would infringe it if they were manufactured, used, etc. The scope of the injunction may not extend further than the subject matter of the dispute that the court has assessed and decided. Judicial trends and practice: 16. Is there any discernible trend in your country as to the willingness or otherwise of courts to grant or refuse injunctions for particular IPRs or in relation to particular subject matter? The rules and conditions for granting preliminary injunctions follow from the Norwegian Dispute Act and are of a general nature and do not differentiate between different IPRs. The courts consider the question of whether to grant an injunction based on a specific assessment of whether the conditions for granting it are met. The courts base their decision on whether it is necessary to grant an injunction in the particular case and closely examine whether the main claim has been substantiated, and if there are grounds for injunction. We have looked into a number of published decisions made by Norwegian courts in recent years, in cases concerning injunctions within the field of IPR law. We note that the number of petitions for preliminary injunction has largely remained constant over the last three years. Preliminary injunction is claimed in cases regarding patent rights, trademark rights and copyright. There are hardly any examples of injunctions regarding other IPRs including design rights. There is nothing in the legal framework for injunctions that might cause design rights to be underrepresented in published court decisions. We have not discerned any particular trends as to the willingness of the courts to grant or refuse injunctions based on the IPR in question or the subject matter of the case when it comes to permanent injunctions. As pointed out under question 8, one of the conditions for granting a temporary injunction is that the injunction is necessary to "avert considerable loss or inconvenience". As pointed out above, the only measure available against infringements of a more ideal nature, typically copyrights will often be an injunction, because should the right holder have to wait until a decision in a main case, his right 7

8 might be illusory. On the other hand, if the claim is in reality a claim for monetary compensation, as in some patent or trademark cases when the right holder is not himself exploiting the patent apart from licensing, the courts might decline a temporary injunction. This also occurs in cases of unlawful use of personal pictures or similar, when the claimant is willing to accept monetary compensation. However, a claim for compensation may be so large that the right holder is likely to suffer considerable loss should he have to wait for a decision in the main case which might take several years in large patent litigation. The latter is typical for pharmaceutical patent cases. 17. What, if any, has been the impact of the ebay v Merc-Exchange decision or any tendency of the courts in your jurisdiction to treat final injunctions as discretionary? Please explain whether the ebay v Merc-Exchange decision has been relied on or cited by your courts, and in what circumstances. Alternatively, or in addition, has there been any legal commentary on any potential implications of the ebay v Merc- Exchange decision in your jurisdiction? The ebay v Merc-Exchange decision has not been referred to, relied on or cited by Norwegian courts at the time of writing. No mention of the decision has been made. Nor have we found any legal commentary on or any references to the decision in Norwegian law publications. However, there are several reasons for this to be as expected. Firstly, Norwegian courts have very little tradition for citing foreign case-law in their decisions. The Norwegian Supreme Court will cite foreign case law if relevant, but will normally look to jurisdictions closer to Norwegian law, such as other Scandinavian Countries, Germany and Great Britain. There are hardly examples of US cases being cited. II. Proposals for harmonisation The Groups are invited to put forward proposals for the adoption of harmonised rules in relation to injunctions for infringement of IPRs. More specifically, the Groups are invited to answer the following questions: Availability of provisional/preliminary injunctions: 18. Should there be a test or criteria for the grant of a provisional/preliminary injunction for the infringement of an IPR? If yes, what should that test or those criteria be? The Norwegian Group believes that there should be a simple test for the grant of a preliminary injunction against the infringement of an IPR: if a competent court finds that an IPR is being infringed or that it is likely that it will be infringed, a preliminary injunction should be granted, unless the order requested would impose on the alleged infringer burdens that are clearly disproportionate to the interest that the IPR owner has in obtaining the injuctive order. The posting of adequate security may be set as a condition for the injunction to become effective. 8

9 19. If no, what principles should be considered in determining whether to grant an provisional/preliminary injunction? Availability of permanent injunctions: 20. Should there be a test for the grant of a permanent injunction for the infringement of an IPR? If yes, what should that test be? As stated in the answer to question 18, there should be a simple test for the grant of a permanent injunction against the infringement of an IPR: if a competent court finds that an IPR is being infringed or that it is likely that it will be infringed, a permanent injunction should be granted. 21. If no, what principles should be considered in determining whether to grant a permanent injunction? N/A Discretion: 22. In what circumstances, if any, should the grant of an injunction automatically follow a finding of infringement of an IPR? In a main proceeding on the full merits, always, if the IPR owner requests it. 23. In what circumstances, if any, should the grant of an injunction be denied notwithstanding a finding of infringement of an IPR? In proceedings for a preliminary injunction, a principle of proportionality should apply. Differences between IPRs: 24. Should the above test/principles apply equally to all IPRs? No 25. If no, what should any differences be and why? N/A Scope: 26. Should an injunction be granted only against named parties to infringement proceeding, or should an injunction be available more broadly against potential infringers such as customers or manufacturers who are not parties to the proceeding? An injunction should be granted only in respect of specific acts performed with or on specific goods/services, and which the court has found amount to infringement or will amount to infringement if they are committed. As a main rule, final injunctions should be granted only against named parties to infringement proceedings. However, the remedy of a preliminary injunction directed against specific acts of infringement performed by anyone with or on specified goods or services should be available. 9

10 27. What is the appropriate scope of an injunction prohibiting an infringer from committing further infringing acts? For example, should the injunction relate simply to the IP the subject of the allegation of infringement, or should the injunction be broader in scope? If broader, what is the permissible or desirable scope? The injunction should relate only to the IP that is the subject of the allegation of infringement. SUMMARY In Norway, injunctions for infringements of IPRs are available both on a provisional/preliminary and on a permanent basis. The criteria for the grant of an injunction both preliminary and permanent are equally applicable to infringement of all IPRs. The criteria differ depending on whether the injunction sought is on a preliminary or permanent basis. The Norwegian Dispute Act establishes certain criteria which must be fulfilled to grant injunctions on a preliminary basis. They are of general nature and do not differentiate between different IPRs. There may be different considerations for particular subject matters. The criteria are to be assessed by the court on a case-to-case basis. These criteria are not limited to preliminary injunctions in matters regarding infringement of IPR. A permanent injunction will be granted if the proprietor succeeds in his claim that the defendant is infringing. There are no statutory requirements for obtaining a permanent injunction; the right to an injunction is derived from the statutory provisions which ensure the proprietor an exclusive right. Permanent injunctions will normally be available to all proprietors of infringed IPRs within the scope of this question. There are no particular considerations which apply to different subject matters. For time-limited IPRs the injunction will lapse when the protection time expires, if no expiry date has been specified in the injunction itself. IPRs which are not time-limited will normally be perpetual, although if the proprietor relinquishes his right, the restraining order laid down in the injunction will normally also lapse. As regards preliminary injunctions, there is an element of discretion as regards the content of the injunction. In case of final injunctions, there is no element of judicial discretion. With one exception, injunctions are only granted against named parties to the infringement proceeding. The scope of the injunction may not extend further than the subject matter of the dispute that the court has assessed and decided. The number of petitions for preliminary injunctions has largely remained constant over the last three years. Preliminary injunctions are claimed in cases regarding patent rights, trademark rights and copyright. There are hardly any examples of injunctions regarding other IPRs including design rights. The ebay v Merc-Exchange decision has not been referred to, relied on or cited by Norwegian courts at the time of writing. 10

11 SUMMARY In Norway, injunctions for infringements of IPRs are available both on a provisional/preliminary and on a permanent basis. The criteria for the grant of an injunction both preliminary and permanent are equally applicable to infringement of all IPRs. The criteria differ depending on whether the injunction sought is on a preliminary or permanent basis. The Norwegian Dispute Act establishes certain criteria which must be fulfilled to grant injunctions on a preliminary basis. They are of general nature and do not differentiate between different IPRs. There may be different considerations for particular subject matters. The criteria are to be assessed by the court on a case-to-case basis. These criteria are not limited to preliminary injunctions in matters regarding infringement of IPR. A permanent injunction will be granted if the proprietor succeeds in his claim that the defendant is infringing. There are no statutory requirements for obtaining a permanent injunction; the right to an injunction is derived from the statutory provisions which ensure the proprietor an exclusive right. Permanent injunctions will normally be available to all proprietors of infringed IPRs within the scope of this question. There are no particular considerations which apply to different subject matters. As regards preliminary injunctions, there is an element of discretion as regards the content of the injunction. In case of final injunctions, there is no element of judicial discretion. With one exception, injunctions are only granted against named parties to the infringement proceeding. The scope of the injunction may not extend further than the subject matter of the dispute that the court has assessed and decided. The number of petitions for preliminary injunctions has largely remained constant over the last three years. Preliminary injunctions are claimed in cases regarding patent rights, trademark rights and copyright. There are hardly any examples of injunctions regarding other IPRs including design rights. The ebay v Merc-Exchange decision has not been referred to, relied on or cited by Norwegian courts at the time of writing. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG In Norwegen stehen gerichtliche Befehle zur Unterlassung von Verstößen gegen Rechte des geistigen Eigentums sowohl als einstweilige als auch als endliche Verfügungen zur Verfügung. Die Kriterien für die Erteilung einer vorläufigen oder dauerhaften Verfügung sind die gleichen wie für Verstöße gegen alle gewerblichen Schutzreche. Die Kriterien unterscheiden sich je nachdem, ob es sich um eine einstweilige oder endliche Verfügung handelt. Gemäβ der norwegischen Zivilprozeβordnung gelten bestimmte Kriterien für die Mitteilung einstweiliger Verfügungen. Sie sind allgemeiner Art und unterscheiden nicht zwischen den verschiedenen Rechten des geistigen Eigentums. Die Anwendung der Kriterien muβ vom Gericht im einzelnen Fall beurteilt werden. Eine endliche Verfügung wird erteilt, wenn der Inhaber in seiner Behauptung, dass der 11

12 Beklagte ein Recht des geistigen Eigentums verletzt, erfolgreich ist. Es gibt keine gesetzliche Vorschriften für die Erlangung einer endlichen Verfügung. Das Recht auf einer endlichen Verfügung ist von den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen, die dem Inhaber ein exklusives Recht gewährleisten, abgeleitet. In der Regel wird ein ständiger Unterlassungsbefehl auf Antrag des Inhabers eines verletzten Rechts an geistigem Eigentum erteilt. In Bezug auf einstweilige Verfügungen, gibt es einen gewissen Ermessensspielraum hinsichtlich des Inhalts der Verfügung. Im Falle der endgültigen Verfügungen gibt es kein Element des richterlichen Ermessens. Mit einer Ausnahme sind Verfügungen nur gegen benannten Parteien des Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens gewährt. Unterlassungsanordningen müssen sich auf diejenige Produkte oder Methoden, die Gegenstand der richterlichen Beurteilung waren, beschränken. Die Zahl der Anträge auf einstweilige Verfügungen waren in den letzten drei Jahren konstant. Einstweilige Verfügungen werden oft in Fällen der Verletzungen von in Patentrechte, Markenrechte und des Urheberrechts beansprucht. Andererseits gibt es wenige Beispiele von einstweilige Verfügungen in Bezug auf andere Rechte des geistigen Eigentum, einschließlich der Geschmacksmusterrechte. Die ebay-v Merc-Exchange Entscheidung nicht vorgelegt worden ist, stützte sich auf oder zitiert von norwegischen Gerichte zum Zeitpunkt des Schreibens. RÉSUMÉ En Norvège, les injonctions applicables aux violations des droits de propriété intellectuelle sont disponibles à titre provisoire ou permanent. Les critères pour l'octroi d'une injonction - préliminaire ou définitive - sont également applicables aux contrefaçons de tous les DPI. Les critères varient selon que la mesure d interdiction est demandée sur une base provisoire ou définitive. La loi norvégienne sur la procédure civile fixe certains critères pour l octroi des injonctions à titre préliminaire. Ils sont de nature générale et ne font pas de distinction entre les différents droits de propriété intellectuelle. Les critères doivent être évalués par le tribunal cas par cas. Il n'existe aucune loi écrite qui prévoit une injonction sur base permanente. Le droit à l octroi d une injonction définitive est dérivé des dispositions légales sur les droits exclusifs. Une injonction permanente sera accordée si le titulaire démontre la contrefaçon. Une injonction permanente sera normalement disponible à tous les propriétaires de droits de propriété intellectuelle enfreints. Il n'ya pas de considérations spécifiques pour des domaines particuliers. En ce qui concerne les injonctions préliminaires, le juge a un certain pouvoir d'appréciation en ce qui concerne le contenu de l'injonction. En cas d injonction permanente, il n'y a aucun élément de discrétion. Avec une seule exception, une injonction est accordée uniquement contre des parties à la procedure en contrefaçon. Une interdiction d exploitation ne se réfère qu aux produits réputés contrefaire le DPI concerné. 12

13 Les nombres des demandes d'ordonnances d'interdiction ont été stables au cours des trois dernières années. Des injonctions sont souvent réclamés en cas d atteints aux brevets, auxmarques, et au droit d'auteur. D'autre part, il existe peu d exemples d'injonctions pour violation d autres droits de propriété intellectuelle, y compris les dessins. Au moment de la redaction, la décision ebay vs. Merc Exchange n a pas été mentionnée, invoquée ou citée par le les tribunaux norvégiens. 13