header-logo header-logo

25 September 2015
Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No break for KitKat from European Court of Justice

The “four finger” shape of a KitKat is not distinctive enough for it to be registered as a trademark, according to a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling.

The ECJ was ruling in Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd (Case C-215/14), concerning Nestlé’s application to register the shape as a 3D mark in the UK. Nestlé argued that the shape was distinct even without packaging or the word KitKat embossed on the chocolate. Cadbury disagreed.

The ECJ ruled that the shape of the bar on its own was not enough to identify the chocolate bar’s origin and therefore could not be registered as a trademark. The case will now return to the High Court for a final ruling.

Lee Curtis, partner at intellectual property firm HGF, says: “This is a dispute about one company, Nestle, trying to monopolise the shape of a product, a KitKat chocolate bar, and in time stopping others using that shape, most notably in this case Cadbury.

“Taken with the original comments from the high court judge, the ECJ decision would imply that a 90% consumer recognition of the shape of the bar by the British public is not enough to give Nestle that monopoly right.”

Nick Bolter, trademark and copyright partner at Cooley (UK) LLP, says: “It is my view that the exclusion from trademark registration of shapes dictated by function was intended to prevent businesses using trademarks to create monopolies that extend beyond the protection of indicators of origin.”

Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll