Trademark squatting and brand protection have become critical issues for founders and growing companies. Even in highly technical ventures where patents may appear paramount, trademarks remain the most visible, enforceable and commercially immediate form of intellectual property (IP). They shape how customers recognise a business, how competitors are blocked from free riding on reputation, and how investors assess risk.
This is not an abstract concept for Aspidistra. We recently applied for and obtained EU trademark protection via the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), in pursuit of the same early-stage brand control discussed in this article. To examine both the risk and the strategic value of trademarks, Aspidistra spoke with Thomas Hagen, partner specialising in intellectual property at Schjødt and Markku Tuominen, a partner at Roschier with more than 25 years of experience advising companies on trademark strategy, enforcement and valuation across the Nordics and Europe.
The increasing risk of trademark squatting
What is trademark squatting, and why is it becoming a growing problem?
Thomas Hagen: Trademark squatting is when a third party registers someone else’s brand, name or identity as their own and then tries to block the rightful owner or demand licence fees. It’s essentially an attempt to steal value by getting there first on paper. It’s becoming more common because trademark registration is relatively cheap, and because brand value today is created very quickly. When something or someone starts to gain attention, there will always be people looking to monetise that momentum without building anything themselves.
We’ve recently seen high‑profile cases such as Erling Haaland, a globally known Norwegian football star and commercial brand in his own right. What does that case say about vulnerability?
Thomas Hagen: In the Erling Haaland case, a third party filed an EU trademark for “Haaland” shortly after he became famous. When Haaland himself later applied to register his own name, the application was blocked because of that earlier filing. EUIPO concluded that the earlier application was made in bad faith and invalidated it.
The case is now on appeal, but it clearly shows that even global stars can be affected if they’re not early enough. We’ve seen this before as well – Neymar, one of the world’s most recognisable professional football players, faced a similar situation. It’s about trying to appropriate names from others and blocking them from using their own identity commercially.
How exposed are startups and smaller companies?
Thomas Hagen: They are significantly more exposed. Famous individuals can at least absorb the cost and visibility of a dispute. Startups often can’t. Without a registered trademark, especially in key jurisdictions, enforcement becomes extremely difficult. In China, for example, or in much of Europe, use alone gives you very limited leverage. Trademark protection needs to be planned early, not treated as a reaction once a problem has already emerged.
First to market is not the same as owning your brand
Many founders believe that being first to market with a name is enough. Why is that a risky assumption?
Thomas Hagen: Use alone does not give you ownership in the way people think it does. You may have some rights through use, but they are unclear, geographically limited, and difficult to enforce. It is often described as building a brand on rented land.
You can invest heavily in marketing and recognition, but someone else can still register the name and block you. By contrast, registering a trademark gives you a defined scope, a clear timeline and a recognised right that you can enforce. And importantly, registration is cheap compared to the consequences of not doing it.
Timing, searches and thinking beyond one country
If a company launches in one Nordic country, how early should it think about trademark protection across the wider region?
Markku Tuominen: From a Nordic trademark owner’s perspective, it is important to consider trademark protection across the wider region from the outset. Before introducing a new trademark in any country, a comprehensive trademark search should be conducted to identify potential risks. That search should extend beyond the country of initial use and reflect where the trademark may be used in the future. For Nordic companies, this typically includes the EU, Norway, the UK and Switzerland. Searches should always be carried out, regardless of whether registration ultimately follows.
For trademarks considered significant enough to register, the first application should be filed before launch. Once a mark becomes public, there is a real risk of bad‑faith registrations or infringing domain names in other jurisdictions. Filing before launch provides legal tools to address both trademark and domain name infringements and establishes a six‑month priority period for filing in other countries with the same priority date.
In practice, many Nordic companies either obtain an EU trademark from the start or ensure that key Nordic markets are covered within the priority period, recognising that trademark rights are territorial and must be secured where future activity is expected.
Is there a point in a company’s journey when registering a trademark makes the most sense?
Thomas Hagen: I prefer not to tie it to revenue or headcount. The better question is: where are you in your development? If you’re about to launch, you should file before you go to market. That way, you avoid third parties stopping you from using your own brand. But in many cases, you should be thinking about trademarks even earlier – when you’re creating the name and identity in the first place. A lot of creative businesses focus heavily on differentiation and brand personality. That’s exactly when trademarks should be part of the discussion.
How far ahead should companies think when registering? Should they only cover what they do today?
Thomas Hagen: You should think beyond today, within reason. Trademarks aren’t just about what you produce now, but where the business may go. If you produce shoes, you may later move into clothing, headgear or accessories. Look at major sports brands – they expand from head to toe. When you register, you should cover relevant neighbouring areas, not because you will necessarily produce everything, but because you may want to license the brand or avoid being boxed in later. That said, you don’t want to overreach. Filing for classes you’ll never use can create problems down the line.
Trademarks as active enforcement tools
You’ve said trademarks can be used actively, not just defensively. How does that work in practice?
Thomas Hagen: Registered trademarks let you act quickly, which often proves crucial. Platforms like Google and Amazon rely on trademark rights in their takedown processes. When you can show registration, you can often remove infringing listings or websites rapidly – far faster than pursuing court proceedings. In some cases, platforms have fully blocked online shops over alleged trademark infringement, forcing the other party to go to court to challenge the action. That speed can decide the outcome when time matters.
Are there markets where companies need to be especially careful?
Thomas Hagen: China is the classic example. If you haven’t registered your trademark there before launching, enforcement is extremely difficult. The US also has its challenges. There are well-known cases of large brands having to rebrand in certain markets simply because someone else registered the name first. Waiting to see whether you’ll enter a market is often too late. EU trademarks are often a good solution in Europe, as one registration covers multiple jurisdictions, even though there is some opposition risk. Overall, it is usually worth taking.
Legal consequences, valuation and common mistakes
In the Nordics, what real consequences can trademark infringers face beyond removing infringing material?
Markku Tuominen: Nordic legal systems do impose other consequences beyond removing infringing material. A trademark owner can typically recover reasonable compensation corresponding to a license fee for the infringing use, and in cases of intent or negligence, additional damages may be awarded. Courts also order the losing party to pay all or part of the winner’s legal costs, which, in practice, can sometimes be high. In countries like Finland, the court may also order the defendant to cover the costs of publishing the judgment.
When assessing companies from a valuation perspective, how much does trademark protection actually contribute to brand value?
Markku Tuominen: International brand valuation standard ISO 10668 treats legal protection as a core determinant of brand value, as a brand can only be valued as an asset to the extent that it is legally controllable and enforceable. The standard requires an assessment of the existence, scope and durability of trademark rights, including whether the brand is registered, the jurisdictions covered, and how broadly goods and services are defined.
A commonly used valuation method is the royalty relief method, which estimates the value of a brand based on the royalties a company would otherwise have to pay to license it. Strong legal protection reduces risk and supports lower discount rates when valuing future cash flows, while weaker protection increases uncertainty and reduces brand value. Legal certainty, therefore, has a direct and measurable impact on a brand’s monetary value.
What do founders most often get wrong when applying for trademark protection?
Thomas Hagen: The most common mistake is failing to think through how the trademark will actually be used. That choice affects which classes are filed, how goods and services are described, and where protection is sought. Founders often either over-file or under-file. Both create risk. IP offices across the Nordics provide useful guidance at no extra cost, yet many founders overlook these resources. And still, the simplest advice holds: have a professional review the application before filing.
Founders often confuse trademarks, patents and copyrights. How should they think about the differences?
Thomas Hagen: Trademarks protect the brand – the name, logo and identity customers recognise. They do not protect the product’s shape or the underlying invention. Patents protect technical solutions, but they demand significant time and investment. Copyright can help protect software, but proving infringement often requires direct access to a competitor’s code. That reality explains why even highly technical companies invest heavily in trademarks. Apple, Tesla and Intel all do. Trademarks stop others from creating false associations and exploiting your reputation. They represent the most visible form of intellectual property and are often the easiest to enforce.
Are sound marks legally comparable to traditional trademarks, and when does it make sense for a company to protect its audio identity?
Markku Tuominen: Sound marks are legally equivalent to traditional trademarks in the Nordic countries and throughout the EU, as long as they satisfy the same essential requirement of distinctiveness. There is a perception that registering a sound mark is unnecessary because sounds can already be protected by copyright without registration as a trademark. However, this perspective is not always accurate.
For a sound to receive copyright protection, it must meet the copyright threshold, which is not always achieved. In certain situations, trademark protection may be the only means to obtain exclusive rights to a sound. Furthermore, trademark registration provides a straightforward way to demonstrate exclusive rights. In cases of infringement, opposing parties frequently contend that the sound is not covered by copyright, which can make it more difficult for the sound owner to establish unregistered copyrights.
Finally, if you could leave founders with one piece of advice about trademarks, what would it be?
Markku Tuominen: It is essential to conduct trademark searches prior to adopting any new trademark. Trademark infringement can result in significant consequences, and conducting searches is a minimal investment relative to the benefits. Furthermore, the information obtained from these searches regarding prior rights and the distinctiveness of the mark helps to facilitate a smoother trademark registration process with reduced costs.
Thomas Hagen: Do it early. Trademark protection costs relatively little, delivers strong protection, and shapes how investors assess your company. If you fail to protect your brand, others can capture the value you worked hard to build. Even very famous people have learned that lesson the hard way. Smaller companies face even greater risk. Register early to retain control – because control enables long‑term growth.
Get help with trademarks across the Nordics:
Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO)
Swedish Intellectual Property Office (PRV)
Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO)
Finnish Patent and Registration Office (PRH)
Trademark squatting – Frequently asked questions
Q: What is trademark squatting?
Trademark squatting occurs when a third party registers someone else’s brand or name in bad faith, aiming to block use or demand payment.
Q: Can startups rely on brand use without registration?
In most jurisdictions, use alone offers limited and uncertain protection. Registration provides clear, enforceable rights.
Q: Which markets are most risky for trademark squatting?
China, the US and the EU are common risk areas due to first-to-file systems and high commercial value.
Q: When should founders register a trademark?
Ideally, before launch or even earlier, when creating the brand name.
For more legal insight, read:
A guide to how the AI Act will impact marketing communications
AI and intellectual property law | Q&A with attorney Nora Haapala
Photo by Vanna Phon on Unsplash
