Vägverket is really making weird decisions

I have not seen this clarification from Vägverket earlier. One of the most weird statements I have seen, and a statement that I last time saw around 1997, i.e. 10 years ago. Vägverket claims in this statement (as an information to those readers that do not know Swedish) that if someone feel that the registration of a vanity plate implies infringement on a trademark, the holder of the trademark can contact Vägverket and they will of course revoke the assignment.

This scares the hell out of me. Someone that assign names either have to check the name beforehand, or stay out of the dispute. The dispute is between the trademark holder and the entity that got the plate.

Om ett företag anser att en personlig skyltbeteckning som vi godkänt kan förväxlas med det egna varumärket bör man kontakta oss, säger Birger Höök, chef på Trafikregistret. Rör det sig om ett varumärkesintrång, så kommer vi naturligtvis att återkalla skyltarna och betala tillbaka de 6 000 kronor som kunden betalat.

In a response to Länsrätten (where the Google case is discussed) Vägverket say that they must be allowed to make mistakes now and then, because otherwise (due to IT based processes) the cost of assignment would be non-optimal and expensive. That blows my mind even more than the statement above.

An agency has to make decisions that are predictable and equal, and with no risk of making different decisions for example whether the entity complaining is large (Google) or small (a citizen of Sweden). There is absolutely no requirement part from local internal budget reasons that the process should be cheap and optimal (and because of that with errors). Or at least the price and optimization is secondary. And to blame IT based tools for introducing more errors.

What is the GD of Vägverket doing? And what are they going to say in their yearly report about this? It will be VERY interesting to see what Länsrätten say about this. If the judgement of the incident with Google is anything else than in favor of the holder of the Google plates (Joakim)…

Google should of course have sent their letter with a complaint to Joakim, not to Vägverket, and that is what Vägverket should have responded. On the other hand, the fact that Google sent the complaint to the wrong address has made this case so much more interesting.

And show that Vägverket has been sleeping under a rock the last 50 years or so.

**Sidenote:**Yes, I have my own history of discussion with Vägverket. I have a leased car that because of this is not owned by me. I have vanity plates (PAF) that I could not use. I called Vägverket, and the first two persons I talked with said that as the car is only to be used by me, is registered with me as a driver, the only thing that was needed was an agreement between me and the owner of the car that as long as I was the driver, I allowed them to have my plates on their car (and vice versa). The contract was written, everyone was happy. Until I got in contact with some person at Vägverket that wanted to show that she (it was a she, but could have been a he as well) was in charge. She just said “but you can not do this, I will not allow it” (yes, I, not we). I tried to explain that other people in her department has told me how things work, and I wanted her to point out in the legislation where it is said that this is not ok. She of course did only hang up the phone in my ear. Me calling back did not help, and when I tried to call the people that previously had helped me, they refused to talk with me. I should have also gone to Länsrätten of course, but I did not have the time. I just gave up. What Joakim is now going through is for me evidence that my situation earlier is not a coincidence. Vägverket has absolutely no control over what process they are using.