This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/17/kitkat-trademark-bar-nestle-cadbury
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| KitKat foiled again in bid to trademark four-fingered bar | KitKat foiled again in bid to trademark four-fingered bar |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Nestlé has lost its appeal to trademark the shape of the four-fingered KitKat bar in the UK. | Nestlé has lost its appeal to trademark the shape of the four-fingered KitKat bar in the UK. |
| The court of appeal ruled against the Swiss confectionery firm on Wednesday in the latest twist in its long-running legal battle with rival Cadbury. | |
| A spokesperson for Nestlé said the company was considering its next move. | A spokesperson for Nestlé said the company was considering its next move. |
| “Nestlé is disappointed by the court of appeal judgment and is considering next steps. | “Nestlé is disappointed by the court of appeal judgment and is considering next steps. |
| “KitKat is much loved around the world and its four-finger shape is well known by consumers. Nestlé’s four-finger shape has been granted trademark registration in many countries of the world, for instance Germany, France, Australia, South Africa and Canada, further protecting it from imitations.” | “KitKat is much loved around the world and its four-finger shape is well known by consumers. Nestlé’s four-finger shape has been granted trademark registration in many countries of the world, for instance Germany, France, Australia, South Africa and Canada, further protecting it from imitations.” |
| In December, an EU court dismissed Nestlé’s attempts to trademark the KitKat shape, following a UK high court ruling in January last year that also rejected Nestlé’s arguments. | In December, an EU court dismissed Nestlé’s attempts to trademark the KitKat shape, following a UK high court ruling in January last year that also rejected Nestlé’s arguments. |
| The two confectioners have been battling over trademarks for a decade, with Nestlé successfully blocking Cadbury’s attempts to trademark the shade of purple used in the packaging of Dairy Milk. | The two confectioners have been battling over trademarks for a decade, with Nestlé successfully blocking Cadbury’s attempts to trademark the shade of purple used in the packaging of Dairy Milk. |
| A spokesperson for Cadbury’s owner, Mondelez, said: “We are pleased with the court of appeal’s decision today and welcome their conclusion. As we have previously stated, we do not believe the shape of the KitKat bar should be protected as a trademark in the UK.” | |
| However, Nestlé could potentially try to take the case to the supreme court. | However, Nestlé could potentially try to take the case to the supreme court. |
| The first KitKat-type bar was sold in Britain by Rowntree in 1935, when it was called Chocolate Crisp, and the shape has changed little since then. Nestlé acquired Rowntree in 1998. | The first KitKat-type bar was sold in Britain by Rowntree in 1935, when it was called Chocolate Crisp, and the shape has changed little since then. Nestlé acquired Rowntree in 1998. |
| A lookalike called Kvikk Lunsj, translated as “quick lunch”, launched in Norway in 1937 and is available in some UK shops. | A lookalike called Kvikk Lunsj, translated as “quick lunch”, launched in Norway in 1937 and is available in some UK shops. |
| Sally Britton, an intellectual property lawyer at Mishcon de Reya, said: “This case is interesting as it examines the type of use and consumer recognition required to obtain monopoly protection over a shape mark. Businesses that have shape marks should be following this decision closely.” | Sally Britton, an intellectual property lawyer at Mishcon de Reya, said: “This case is interesting as it examines the type of use and consumer recognition required to obtain monopoly protection over a shape mark. Businesses that have shape marks should be following this decision closely.” |