Hulda Árnadóttir, partner and María Kristjánsdóttir, associate, recently published this article on Pharmaceutical trademarks in Iceland in Pharmaceutical Trademarks: A global Guide 2010/2021

This article first appeared in Pharmaceutical Trademarks: A Global Guide 2020/2021, a supplement to World Trademark Review, published by Law Business Research – IP Division. To view the guide in full, please go to www.WorldTrademarkReview.com.

On September 10, 2019 the District Court of Reykjavík dismissed cases brought by plaintiffs that claimed that the operating licenses of Fjardalax and Arctic Seafarm in Patreksfjordur and Talknafjordur should be annulled. In addition to the dismissals of the claims the District Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments on their merits. On behalf of LEX, the partners Guðjón Ármannsson, Kristín Edwald and Víðir Smári Petersen provided legal advice and argued the case before the District Court on behalf of Fjardalax and Arctic Sea Farm.

At the end of August, the Environmental Agency of Iceland and the Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority issued new operating licenses for aquaculture in Patreksfjordur and Talknafjordur. This issuing brings an end to the companies’ administrative struggle to maintain valid operating licenses.
There were enormous interests in this matter, not only for the companies themselves, but also for the local society and the national economy. Studies indicate that effects from growing aquaculture in the area will have a significant positive impact on economic and social factors. There is much evidence that increased people’s confidence in the area and greater employment opportunities have had positive impact and played a part in reversing the negative population development in the area. More than one hundred direct and indirect jobs in the region can be traced to the companies’ operations there.

Guðmundur Ingvi Sigurdsson, a lawyer at LEX, was a legal advisor to Ancala Partners regarding Ancala Partners’ investments in HS Orka hf. Ancala Partners purchased the shares from Jarðvarmi ehf., a company owned by fourteen pension funds, that owned 33,4% share in HS Orka, after Jarðvarmi had exercised its pre-emptive right to purchase shares in HS Orka’s share for about ISK 37 billion. Following the investment, Ancala Partners holds a 50% stake in HS Orka and Jarðvarmi 50%.

HS Orka is the third largest energy company in Iceland and the only one privately owned. The company has over 40 years of experience in the production of renewable energy; owns and operates two geothermal plants one in Svartsengi and the other in Reykjanes. Construction of the company’s first hydropower plant, the Brúár hydro plant, is now underway.

Fanney Frímannsdóttir and Snæbjörn Ólafsson, attorneys at LEX assisted on the transaction.

The Supreme Court today awarded in favour of Grimsnes and Grafnings municipality, in a case filed by Óskar Sigurðsson, a partner at LEX law offices, on behalf of the municipality against the Icelandic state because of the Equalization municipality fund. Four other municipalities, Skorradalshreppur, Hvalfjarðarsveit, Ásahreppur and Fljótsdalshreppur, had filed similar cases against the Icelandic state, and this judgment is a precedent for these court cases. At the same time, similar demands were made by the municipalities in question for the years that have passed since the lawsuits were filed against the Icelandic state.

In the case, it was questioned whether in a regulation it was permissible to provide for municipalities that had total municipal income tax and property tax that were significantly above the national average should not receive specific contributions from the Equalization municipality fund.

In the Supreme Court’s ruling, it was stated in the explanatory memorandum of a bill to the Constitutional Act no. 97/1995 with the rule that became paragraph 2. Article 78 that its purpose was to establish the fact that a decision on municipal income sources should fall under the legislative authority and thus not under the governmental authority. In view of the constitutional status of municipalities and the instructions of the second paragraph article 78 of the Constitution would not be interpreted in any other way than that it was not permissible to abolish all or part of local government revenue streams, except by law. Therefore, it would not be done by regulation.

The total amount of claims due to these cases and other similar requirements of the municipalities that have been concluded, amounts to approx. ISK 1.4 billion.

Sjávarsýn, a holding company, which owns a considerable stake in companies such as Ísmar, Gasfélagið, Tandur, S4S, Iceland Seafood, Cargow and Íslensk orkumiðlun recently won a court case against the Icelandic State in the District Court of Reykjavík.

The background of the case is that Sjávarsýn merged with its subsidiary Imagine Investment and there was a dispute with the tax authorities on the tax treatment of the merger. Both the Directorate of Internal Revenue and the Internal Revenue Board ruled against Sjávarsýn, whereas the Internal Revenue Board, rejected the imposition of a charge on Sjávarsýn’s tax payments. The District Court of Reykjavík, however, accepted all of Sjávarsýn’s primary claims and the Icelandic State was ordered to repay Sjávarsýn with interest previously levied taxes, and legal costs.

The legal issue debated in this case concerned whether Imagine Investment had fulfilled the conditions of Article 54(1) of the Income Tax Act which requires the merged company to have been in operations before the merger and not to have had insignificant assets. In sum, the District Court of Reykjavík accepted all of Sjávarsýn’s primary arguments in a well-reasoned judgement.

Garðar Víðir Gunnarsson, partner at LEX was in charge of the case, and Guðrún Lilja Sigurðardóttir, a senior associate at LEX, argued the case before the District Court.