Sara Emilie Tandberg is accused of plagiarism:
Sara Emilie Tandberg (30) announced in early December that the brand “Filiokus Kids” would produce sustainable products for children. These include lunch boxes, drink bottles and bibs.
– This will now be launched just before Christmas, said the influencer in an interview with Hadeland.
The married couple Marte Næss and Ole André Sivertsen, the owners of “Filiokus Media”, did not like it.
The married couple established “Filiokus Media” in 2006. Produces commemorative books and stock products within the gnome universe.
Now they accuse Tandberg of copying their brand.
– We react as we do because we sell books to the same target group as “Filiokus Kids”. Even though we don’t have identical products, we have a common target group and points of sale, say Marte Næss and Ole André Sivertsen to God kveld Norge.
According to the couple, the marketing also takes place on the same platforms. They explain that social media marketing is not only about product placement, but also about selling a story and identity.
– Over 17 years, “Filiokus Media” has created such a history and identity, so when a new player uses “Filiokus” in their name, they are also making use of our efforts and hard work over 17 years in establishing this brand .
Read what lawyer Christoffer Johnsen says about the case further down.
Admits contact
Good evening Norway contacted Tandberg to hear what she herself thinks about the accusations.
– I have not been involved in any development. I joined recently because I see potential in a fantastic brand that I want to develop further, and I look forward to the future of this brand, says Tandberg.
She admits that in 2018 she had a conversation with “Filiokus Media” about a potential collaboration, but has not remembered their name four years later.
– As soon as they said that they thought it was unfortunate, I changed the name to “Filiokus Kids” on social media and have specified that we will upgrade the logo and look at solutions even though we have the rights – to take account and avoid confusion .
SHARED POSTS: Marte Næss shared this post on Instagram after Tandberg’s launch. Photo: Screenshot from Instagram.
Furthermore, Tandberg refers to the chairman of “Filiokus Kids”, David Reme. In an e-mail to God kveld Norge, he clarifies that “Filiokus” is not a protected brand.
– “Babybanden.no” ensured that the trademark “Filiokus” (“Filiokus Kids”, journ.anm) was registered for the product groups that are relevant to this “brand”, he writes and continues:
– You therefore have the full right to dispose of this name.
Furthermore, Reme explains that their “Filiokus” was developed in 2021 to be a brand in “Babybox”. He says that Tandberg was not part of this process, rather the choice of name or development of the logo.
– Misleading marketing
The married couple Næss and Sivertesen explain that the situation has been very stressful.
The couple say that they are aware that the other party has trademarked “Filiokus Kids”, but still believe that the Marketing Act has been broken.
– Chapter 6 of the Marketing Act deals entirely with business practices, misleading marketing and imitations of other people’s products or “brands”, say Næss and Sivertsen.
– It surprises me that Sara Emilie Tandberg does not react to the name or logo of the company she invests in, writes Næs in a message to God kveld Norge.
Næss confirms that the parties communicated in 2018, and says that Tandberg contacted “Filiokus Media” with a request for a collaboration.
– This request was refused by us after a few rounds. In other words, Sara Emilie knows us well and likes our products, as she herself wrote that “I love your products”, says Næss.
Furthermore, the couple believes that marketing in 2022 will largely be about storytelling in social media, identity and the target group you are addressing.
– When these are the same, and we will also experience selling our products at the same retailers, you cannot get ready and use other people’s names in such a way, the married couple.
Sorry and make changes
Chairman Reme admits that there is a similarity between the logos, and says that the company will now change it.
– “Filiokus Kids” has been in contact with the designer who did not know the almost five-year-old logo for “Filiokus Media”. The similarity between the logos is 100 percent accidental, he claims.
– Nevertheless, we have now decided that we will initiate the development of a new logo for “Filiokus Kids”, as it is important for us to also build an identity that cannot be confused. We want an active dialogue with “Filiokus Media” about this. We would like to regret unreservedly that we did not know about the logo similarities to the old logo.
Furthermore, he says that the situation is regrettable, and that the products should not be associated with any kind of conflict over logo similarity.
Thinks Tandberg is acting recklessly
The married couple Næss and Sivertsen find it very burdensome that this situation has arisen, and believe that it will affect their brand, which they have worked with for close to 20 years.
– We think that a major actor like Sara Emilie Tandberg acts recklessly towards us. In our opinion, Tandberg and “Filiokus Kids” practice bad business practices. In addition to the disadvantages this causes for us, we think that they will have a lot to gain by bowing out and finding a new company name.
The couple argue that “Filiokus Kids” are new to the market, and that it would be healthy for them to relaunch with a new name in connection with Tandberg joining the company.
– As it is now, they will always face the problem that we have existed before them and that their products have existed for a long time before “launch”, they concluded.
A brand expert believes they are in borderland
Trademark expert Karl-Fredrik Tangen tells God kveld Norge that as long as it is a commonly used word, it is difficult to get protection for a trademark.
Tangen also says that there is a risk that the word you use could enter everyday speech. You have to protect the trademark every ten years, and you risk losing it.
– “Filiokus” is after all from “Hokus Pokus Filiokus”, which is such a magic word. The question is whether “Filiokus” is a general word or not.
Tangen believes that the word “Filiokus” is borderline.
– I would think that no one should be allowed to trademark “Filiokus”.
– When you look at companies that have identical names, how does that affect the companies?
– Someone can win from the confusion. For example, if you call your soft drink “Cocky Cola”, because you were unknown and based on someone known. I don’t know if this is the case here – I think possibly that the “Filiokus” company is quite unknown.
– What could be the consequences of plagiarism, in terms of reputation?
– I think plagiarism is partly a matter between companies. I wouldn’t be afraid to try based on reputation reasons. Cases like this keep coming up, that companies copy, and a few weeks go by, then people have forgotten what it was.
– The moral punishment that the company receives if they do something that is on the border, either legally or what people can accept at the moment – it is not that great, he concludes.
Marte Næss writes in a message to God kveld Norge that their logo can be found on hundreds of thousands of books and other products in homes all over the country.
– When it comes to how well known we are in the target group, it is difficult to “prove” it yourself, beyond saying that we have been at it for 17 years and our books sell year after year at all the major book chains.
“Filiokus Media” has had several titles on the bestseller lists both at book retailer chains and on the official bestseller list, Næs can tell.
She therefore claims that “all” buyers of children’s products know about “Filiokus Media” and their products.
Not in violation of the Copyright Act
Lawyer in Bing Hodneland, Christoffer Johnsen, confirms in an e-mail to Good evening Norway that Tandberg’s use of the name “Filiokus” probably does not conflict with the copyright law.
– For something to be considered an intellectual work, what is created must be “an expression of original and individual creative effort”. With reference to the fact that the name “Filiokus” is well known from before (in the context of “hocus pocus filiokus”), there is little to suggest that the name “Filiokus” itself has been subject to the Copyright Act.
– In other words, everyone is free to use the expression “Filiokus” according to the rules in the Intellectual Property Act, says Johnsen.
Actions may be in breach of the Marketing Act
Johnsen clarifies that their assessments of the matter are only based on the information he has received from Good Evening Norway.
– Whether something illegal has happened here usually depends on a complex overall assessment of all relevant circumstances in the case.
– Is Tandberg’s use of “Filiokus Kids” contrary to the Marketing Act?
– The Marketing Act’s provision on protection against imitative products/creations which must be considered an unreasonable exploitation of the efforts of others and carries with it the risk of confusion, as well as the prohibition of actions contrary to good business practice, are rules that are intended to be able to supplement the intellectual property imitation protection ( copyright). , trademark rights, design rights and business name rights), answers Johnsen.
He then explains that something more is often required than just having names or products that are similar to each other. There may therefore be elements in the case that will not be captured by the above-mentioned regulations.
– A classic case of what “more” can be are cases where the imitation has occurred in the wake of a previous connection between the parties, for example failed contract negotiations, he says and continues:
– Based on the information you have sent us, this may appear to be the case in this case, and it is therefore possible that the actions you describe may be in breach of the Marketing Act’s rules on the protection of the interests of traders.
He highlights the similarity between the logos in this context.
– The text “Filiokus” in gray on white, together with three stars, and where in one is a pencil and in the other is a doodle that could have been drawn by a pencil.
– The logos here are so similar that there is a risk that the sales circle may confuse who offers the various products. This is a central consideration behind the imitation rules, i.e. that consumers should not be misled about the origin of the products in the marketing.