Home: Maucher Jenkins

Intellectual Property

Patents | Trade Marks | Designs

新闻与事件

新闻活动

Purple wars....Nestlé v Cadbury

日期: 19 April 2015

EmailTwitterLinkedInXingWeChat

On 18 April 2016, The High Court dealt a further blow to Cadbury's attempt to gain monopoly in the colour purple as a trade mark for their chocolate. Cadbury, owned by snack food multinational, Mondelez, mounted a last-ditch effort to retain existing UK registered trade mark rights following a ruling by the Court of Appeal in 2013, which found that Cadbury had previously filed a trade mark application for the same colour in overly broad and imprecise terms.

 

Cadbury sought to save its existing registration for the same flawed description by applying to the UKIPO to have its existing registration re-characterised retrospectively as a "series" in the hope that the ambiguous part of the description would be deleted, leaving a valid trade mark.

 

Mr Baldwin QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division, dismissed Cadbury's appeal against the UKIPO's decision to refuse that application. He noted that there was no provision in UK law that would allow such a late amendment. The trade mark covered an unknown number of signs which are not part of any series so a request to delete part of the original description could not be entertained.

 

The Court also noted that permitting the late amendment would circumvent the rules requiring full and stringent examination of trade mark applications, which protect the public interest in ensuring that unduly broad monopolies are not granted.

 

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. participated in the appeal as an intervener and were represented by RGC Jenkins & Co. In its decision, the High Court adopted Nestlé's position and rejected Cadbury's approach.

 

Angela Fox commented, "we are delighted with this outcome, which vindicates Nestlé's position that the public and businesses have an interest in knowing the extent of monopoly rights that might be asserted against them. Only rights which are clearly defined should be accorded protection and a bad mark cannot be resuscitated by abusing the 'series' marks provisions."

 

Joanne Ling (Senior Associate) and Angela Fox (Partner) represented Nestlé in its application for intervention, as well as in the previous Court of Appeal proceedings in Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Cadbury UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1174.

 

A copy of the judgment can be found here: Cadbury UK Limited v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. [2016] EWHC 796 (Ch).



Tuesday, April 19, 2016

C
本网站使用cookies。

其中一些cookies是必要的,而另一些cookies则通过分析网站的使用方式来帮助我们改善您的用户体验。有关我们使用的cookies的更多详细信息,请查看我们的隐私政策

必要的Cookies

必要的cookies可实现网站核心功能。 没有这些cookies,网站将无法正常运行。这些cookies只能通过更改浏览器选项来禁用。

分析性Cookies

分析性cookies通过收集和报告使用信息帮助我们改进网站。

x