In the recently reported case of Systemhus Norge A/S v. Varmbohus A/S the differences between the Nordic approach to copyright and the Anglo-Saxon tradition were highlighted. In this case, there had been what seems to have been a fairly close copy by the defendant of a "standard type" house designed by the plaintiff. The house was apparently in a typically Swiss style. The court concluded that there was insufficient intellectual effort in the design of the plaintiff's house to justify copyright protection. In this context, the court specifically noted that copyright protection required use of the originator's "own intellectual achievement" and went on to point out that this "might be the result of fantasy, of talent or of professional skills but not just of diligence". In particular, mere combination of well known elements did not in general make something an intellectual achievement. Consequently, there was no copyright protection for the design of the house in question.

On the other hand, however, Section 1 of the Marketing Act imposes upon those who do business the obligation to abide by "correct business customs" and Section 9 of that Act specifically prevents the copying of designs of other tradesman "in such a way or under such circumstances that it must be considered an unjust exploitation of another person's efforts or results in the risk that copying might take place". The court had no difficulty whatsoever in coming to the conclusion that the defendant's copying was a violation of these principles and thus the action for compensation under the Marketing Act succeeded where the action for copyright infringement failed.

June 1994 Index