Only a Technicality - CJEU Decides on What Amounts to a 'Technical Function' in Registered Designs

The protection of designs is complicated, no less because the design of a particular product can often be tied to the end function it is meant to achieve. A functional element of a design might not attract protection as a design, since the regime only protects (to put very simply) aspects of designs that are of more aesthetic value. What amounts to a feature that won't be protected is difficult to decide, as many aesthetic features can often achieve a technical result as well. This prompts the question, when is a feature like that protectable or not? The CJEU took on this question on a case decided only a few weeks ago.

The case of DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH concerned the manufacture and sale of technical ceramic components by DOCERAM, in particular, weld centring pins for the automotive and textile industries. Many of these designs are registered as Community designs (RCD 242730). CeramTec also manufactures and sells similar centring pins in the same variants as DOCERAM's registrations. DOCERAM subsequently took CeramTec to court for design infringement, with the matter ultimately ending on the desk of the CJEU.

The referring court asked two questions, which related to the factors in determining whether a design is one that is solely dictated by its technical function, and therefore not registrable under Article 8(1) of the Community Design Regulation.

The first question, as set out by the Court, asked whether "…Article 8(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ascertain whether the features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its function, the existence of alternative designs is decisive, or whether it must be established that function is the only factor which dictated those characteristics".

Having considered the legislation and relevant case law, the Court determined that "…Article 8(1)… excludes protection… for features of appearance of a product where considerations other than the need for that product to fulfil its technical function, in particular those related to the visual aspect, have not played any role in the choice of those features, even if other designs fulfilling the same function exist". In short, even if alternative designs exist, the only relevant consideration is whether the technical function is the only factor which determined the features in question and the applicability of Article 8(1).

With regards to the second question, the referring court asked whether "…Article 8(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether the relevant features of appearance of a product are exclusively dictated by its technical function, that finding must be based on the perception of the ‘objective observer’".

The Article does not set out any requirements on the perspective of the assessment above, unlike other provisions in the Regulation. That in mind, the objective of the Regulation nonetheless does require national courts to take account of all the objective circumstances relevant to each individual case when determining whether features of a design are covered by the provision.

The Court finally set out that "…in order to determine whether the relevant features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its technical function… the national court must take account of all the objective circumstances relevant to each individual case. In that regard, there is no need to base those findings on the perception of an ‘objective observer’".

The case sets out clear guidelines on the assessment of features in designs that may or may not be solely dictated by their technical function. Designs are often a pile of uncertainty, being very difficult to protect (as illustrated well by the Trunki case, more on which here). Having a clearer idea as to how the lines are drawn for protection helps both proprietors and others disputing the registrations.

Problem Fixed - CJEU Decides on IP and the Right to Repair Goods

Tinkering with old gadgets or cars is a beloved pastime for many, and often prolongs the life of the goods you own even beyond their warranty periods. Many manufacturers are making it increasingly difficult to repair items, particularly high-end electronics, and with discussions heating up relating to Apple's slow-down of their devices due to hardware aging, it is conceivable even more important for people to fix their old items. We've discussed IP issues relating to repairing or tinkering with tractors, but there has been very little judicial consideration around it. In that vein, what are the limits of IP and peoples' right to repair their goods? The CJEU took this question on late last year.

The case of Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl and Audi AG concerned the sale of alloy rims for cars, for which Audi owns several registered community designs (e.g. RCD 132899 and 207667). Acacia manufactured rims under the brand WSP Italy, sold on their website, which are identical to the rims registered by Audi. The rims made by Acacia were clearly stamped as not made by the OEM, and were sold exclusively as replacement parts for the purpose of making repairs. Audi took Acacia to court over design infringement, with the matter ending up with the CJEU. Porsche had a similar matter joined with the Audi case against Acacia.

The Court joined the questions from both matters, which, essentially inquired about EU law in relation to repairs and design infringement.

The first combined question dealt by the Court asked whether "…Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it makes the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the protected design is dependent upon the appearance of the complex product".

The restoration of a vehicle's appearance is important, especially in a crash situation, and without the exception this wouldn't be possible. The Article 110 exception allows for this, and the CJEU had to therefore consider the provision's remit.

The CJEU rejected the condition that the exception only operates where the design is dependent upon the appearance of the complex product due to the absence of this phraseology in the legislation. The provision also protects against captive markets, where only the design holder can produce certain spare parts, allowing for consumers to purchase less expensive alternatives and not be tied to one particular provider. The Court therefore set out that "…Article 110(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it does not make the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the protected design is dependent upon the appearance of the complex product".

The Court then moved onto the second combined question, which asked "…to which conditions the ‘repair’ clause in Article 110(1)… subjects the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance".

The CJEU quickly set out that the provision is subject to three conditions: (i) the existence of a Community design; (ii) the presence of a ‘component part of a complex product’; and (iii) to the need for ‘[use] within the meaning of Article 19(1) for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance’.

It's not just sellers who struggle with auto repairs

In specifying these conditions, the Court first observed that the second condition (as rights exist in the wheel rims) covers "…multiple components, intended to be assembled into a complex industrial or handicraft item, which can be replaced permitting disassembly and re-assembly of such an item, without which the complex product could not be subject to normal use", and that a wheel rim would indeed fall under this definition.

With regards to the third condition, the CJEU saw that 'use' of that product for the purpose of repairing that product includes making, offering, putting on the market, importing, exporting or using of a product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied, or stocking such a product for those purposes. This use, however, has to be with the aim to 'permitting the repair of the product', which encompasses the situation where, if that part were faulty or missing, this would prevent the product's normal use.

In short, the 'use' of the product, set out above, needs to be necessary for the repairing of that product if it has become defective through damage or lack of original parts. Purely aesthetic repairs wouldn't be covered by the provision, as it's only for convenience. Even still, the repairing would have to be done ‘so as to restore its original appearance’.

What this amounts to is that "…the component part must be used so as to restore the complex product to the appearance it had when it was placed on the market". The CJEU also added that the clause only applies to component parts of a complex product that are visually identical to the original parts.

In short, the CJEU saw that "…the ‘repair’ clause in it makes the exclusion of protection as a [RCD] for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the replacement part must have an identical visual appearance to that of the part which was originally incorporated into the complex product when it was placed on the market".

The Court then moved onto the final combined question, which asked "…whether Article 110(1)... must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to rely on the ‘repair’ clause in that provision, the manufacturer or seller of a component part of a complex product must ensure and, in that case, how it must ensure, that the component part can be purchased exclusively for repair purposes".

As detailed above, the repair clause is subject to a number of conditions, and in particular ones that emphasises a genuine need for repairs. This imposes compliance on part of the downstream user, not just the seller. This means that the seller needs to inform the buyer that "…the component part concerned incorporates a design of which they are not the holder and, on the other, that the part is intended exclusively to be used for the purpose of the repair of the complex product so as to restore its original appearance". Similarly, this needs to be ensured and enforced through contractual means with the buyer. Finally, "…the manufacturer or seller must refrain from selling such a component part where they know or, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, ought reasonably to know that the part in question will not be used in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 110(1)".

In summary, the CJEU stated that "…Article 110(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to rely on the ‘repair’ clause contained in that provision, the manufacturer or seller of a component part of a complex product are under a duty of diligence as regards compliance by downstream users with the conditions laid down in that provision".

The case is a very important one, and clarifies the provisions surrounding the repairing of vehicles or goods owned by an individual and in particular the sale of those goods for repair. The onus is clearly on the seller, which makes sense, as they are the ones likely to benefit from the sales of the goods for repair, rather than the rightsholder.

Source: D Young

Hollowed Out - Can You Register a Geographical Name as a Trademark?

The origin of the materials of goods can be very influential as a part of a consumer's purchase decision, often signalling particularly high quality or desired traits not seen in similar materials from elsewhere. As such the location's name carries weight, and many different products can be made from the materials from the same source, albeit potentially still varying in quality. Being able to use the location's name is therefore quite important to all interested parties, so this begs the question; can you register the name as a trademark? The matter was recently discussed in the IPEC this past summer.

The case of Mermeren Kombinat AD v Fox Marble Holdings Plc concerned marble quarried from the Sivec region in Macedonia, where these types of activities have been going on since Ancient Rome. Mermeren is a marble extraction company operating since the 1950s in Prilep, a region that includes Sivec. They registered the name SIVEC as a trademark in 2014 (EUTM 12057915), ultimately pursuing Fox Marble for trademark infringement for using the name SIVEC. Fox Marble also counterclaimed for invalidity of the trademark.

The matter focussed on whether the trademark was invalid under Article 7(1)(c) of the CTM Regulation, which sets out that marks consisting exclusively of "…or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service" cannot be registered. Even with this focus the above Article is still subject to Article 7(3), where a mark can avoid Article 7(1)(c) if it has inherent distinctive character.

The Court then moved on to assessing whether the mark in question has inherent distinctive character. After an exhaustive review of case law relating to inherent distinctive character, Judge Hacon, presiding over the matter, set out the summarised eleven principles relevant when considering distinctiveness. While not discussed at length in the decision, they are still important to keep in mind when thinking about distinctiveness.

The judge started by looking at who the average consumer is. He did, however, first observe that the CJEU has not considered the meaning of a 'relevant class of persons' or what a 'significant proportion', which are an important part of this principle. Judge Hacon concluded that this would be "…a proportion markedly above de minimis but not necessarily over half" – a line that is difficult to draw when a majority isn't needed, so will heavily rely on the facts in each case.

Not all art materials are created equal

The judge first very quickly dealt with the question of the average consumer in the matter. Agreed by both parties, the average consumer is "…a specialist dealer in marble or a person who advises their customers on the choice of materials to be used in a building, such as an architect or designer of interiors", but this person would have to be from the EU and therefore not Macedonia.

The second matter was whether the mark had inherent distinctive character. Judge Hacon swiftly determined that the mark would not have inherent distinctive character denoting geographical origin due to the obscurity of the location it referred to. The average consumer wouldn't have heard of Sivec, unless you lived near the area, which eliminates the possibility of the name having inherent distinctiveness. Use of the name would have to be disregarded, as that relates to acquired distinctive character.

The Court then moved onto the matter of acquired distinctive character. Fox Marble argued three assumptions to support a non-finding of acquired distinctiveness: the trademark is inherently distinctive and therefore can be argued to not be distinctive through use; the average consumer would only see it as denoting a geographical origin, even without knowing the place exists; and that not enough people would perceive the goods to come from Mermeren.

The judge quickly dealt with the first two assumptions, with the former having been decided when no inherent distinctive character was found. The latter was accepted by the judge, as it is possible for the average consumer to perceive the origin of the goods through this assumption; however, their actual perception would differ from this when considering the mark's use in isolation from this assumption.

Finally, the judge considered the 'messy reality' of the relevant persons' belief as to the meaning of the mark. As discussed above, the judge highlighted that, although the mark has to be perceived by a significant portion of the relevant people, this can be a portion that is markedly above de minimis. Therefore, even if all people are not persuaded, the law can still consider the amount significant.

Judge Hacon then moved onto the extensive evidence on acquired distinctive character. He concluded that "…by August 2013 a significant proportion of relevant persons, certainly markedly above de minimis and probably higher than that, had come to believe that 'Sivec' was a trade mark owned by Mermeren, signifying that marble marked with that name came from a single undertaking" and had therefore acquired distinctiveness. The more influential evidence included invoices, presence at exhibitions and advertising campaigns launched by Mermeren.

The trademark had ultimately remained validly registered and had no grounds for revocation.

The case is not ground-breaking by any means (although clarified important parts of the law in acquired distinctiveness), but shows that, through a concerted effort to educate the population as to the origin of a trademark, even if a place on Earth, can lead to a successful registration and maintenance of a mark. Evidence was clearly key in the case, rather than complex legal arguments.

Source: IPKat

Indistinct Taxi Service - London Taxi Design not Distinctive, says UK Court of Appeal

Shape trademarks have always been a difficult issue for the courts. The balancing act of trying to protect the general shape of something while being distinctive to get protection is a difficult line to tread, as the recent Kit Kat cases have shown among other decisions. One such saga that is currently being waged is over the design of the London black taxi, which many, this writer included, have used on a regular basis in the city. After a defeat at first instance, The London Taxi Company pursued the matter further into the Court of Appeal, who rendered their decision very recently.

The case of The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (t/a the London Taxi Company) v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd dealt with, as mentioned above, EU and UK trademarks over the design of the London black taxi (EUTM 951871 and UKTM 2440659). Frazer-Nash Research, a vehicle research and design company, designed and were ready to launch a new London taxi called the Metrocab (a hybrid electric car). In anticipation of infringement, LTC sued FNR for trademark infringement and passing off.

The Court had to look at 8 different points of appeal focusing on the validity of the trademarks and infringement of the trademarks if deemed valid.

The first point dealt with the definition of the average consumer in the case, particularly whether it would be the taxi driver who purchases the taxi or the same together with members of the public who hire taxis. Having extensively considered case law on the definition of 'average consumer', Lord Justice Floyd saw that the 'average consumer' is "…any class of consumer to whom the guarantee of origin is directed and who would be likely to rely on it". It followed from this that the 'average consumer' could include both the purchaser and the hirer of the services, but the Court didn't make a full decision on this point.

The second point dealt with the trademarks' inherent or acquired distinctive character.

In terms of inherent distinctive character, Lord Justice Floyd observed that the test for assessing distinctiveness for 3D trademarks, as set in Freixenet, is whether "…the appearance of the product itself [is] no different from those applicable to other categories of trade mark". Additionally, the trademark has to depart significantly from the norm of the customs of the sector would have distinctive character. Lord Justice Floyd then set out his test for determining whether a mark departs significantly from the norms and customs of the sector (1) determine what the sector is; (2) identify common norms and customs, if any, of that sector; and (3) whether the mark departs significantly from those norms and customs. Following this test, Lord Justice Floyd determined that the trademarks didn't have inherent distinctive character, since none of the features in the design registered were a significant departure from features in other taxis in the sector.

Therefore, the only way for the trademarks to have distinctive character is for them to have acquired it through use. As set in the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Nestle (see more in the link above), the test for acquired distinctiveness is that "…the mark must have come to identify the relevant goods as originating from a particular undertaking and so to distinguish those goods from those of other undertakings". In other words, the London Taxi Company's taxis would have to be distinguishable from other taxis through their design.

Blake loved the design of his taxi a little too much

Following the decision of Justice Arnold at first instance, Lord Justice Floyd decided that the trademarks had not acquired distinctive character among taxi drivers, and that consumers were not concerned with the origin of the taxis they hired and therefore the trademarks wouldn't have acquired distinctive character in the mind of the average consumer. Lord Justice Floyd ultimately considered the marks to be invalid, but still went through the other points of appeal for the sake of clarity.

The third point is whether the shape of the mark gives substantial value to the goods, exclusive of any goodwill in the shape. Lord Justice Floyd found the guidance on this point unclear, and would have referred the matter to the CJEU if this point would still have been relevant.

The fourth point was revocation for a lack of use of the EUTM. If the mark hasn't been used in five years within the EU, the trademark is revoked. The only activity that LTC had undertaken in the EU in relation to the marks was to sell them second-hand, as production had ceased some time ago (the EUTM model was an older model of the taxi). Lord Justice Floyd, in his hypothetical answer, saw that the mark had been used in the EU, although only through the later models that were sold.

The fifth and sixth points dealt with infringement of the trademarks under Article 9(1)(b) and 5(1)(b), and Articles 9(1)(c) and 5(2). As the Metrocab and the trademark designs differed significantly, there would likely be no infringement on the marks under the former two Articles, according to Lord Justice Floyd. With regards to the latter two, there could be infringement, had distinctive character been established in the marks, as the Metrocab would've caused detriment to the trademarks' distinctiveness.

The seventh point concerned a defence of using an EUTM as an indication of, among others, quality, quantity and geographical origin. As set in Maier v ASOS, the legitimacy of the use is considered looking at "…whether there exists a likelihood of confusion; whether the trade mark has a reputation; whether the use of the sign complained of takes advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark; and whether the possibility of conflict was something which the defendant was thought to have been aware".

Having considered the matter briefly, Lord Justice Floyd accepted LTC's assertion that there would be no defence of legitimate use, as the rights of a trademark holder should not be trumped by the conveying of a message that the vehicle is a licenced London taxi. This would be possible to be displayed otherwise, without infringement (although none happened in the matter).

Finally, the Court looked at the point of passing off. Lord Justice Floyd swiftly dismissed the claim of passing off, as, similarly to acquired distinctiveness above, LTC would struggle to prove goodwill in the design of the trademark. Even so, the design of the Metrocab is very different to LTC's design, and therefore wouldn't infringe even if goodwill were present in the case. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal.

The case is yet another painful reminder of the difficulty in registering and particularly maintaining 3D trademarks. Distinctiveness is the hurdle most fall on, and the LTC taxi was no different. LTC have indicated that they might appeal to the Supreme Court, so the fight over taxis might not be over just yet.

Citation Needed - CJEU Decides on Use of Registered Designs as Citations for the Sale of Goods Online

Marketing your goods online can be very tricky, especially if you are in the business of making proprietary goods or accessories relating to well-known brands or goods. Using the name, image or design of the goods your items relate to is almost necessary to communicate the relationship of the goods to the consumer, but without proper authorisation this can be a thorny issue. The law does allow for the use of registered designs for some purposes, but could the use of a design for the sale of goods be allowed under EU law? The CJEU took on this question in late September, giving some clarity to those wishing to do so.

The case of Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH dealt with the manufacture sale of remote controls and other accessories for the Nintendo Wii gaming console by BigBen, selling them online to consumers in France, Belgium and Luxembourg, and to its German subsidiary. The German entity sold the goods, manufactured by BigBen in France, to consumers in Austria and Germany. The German entity in itself does not hold any stock, but orders them when needed from the French entity. Both companies used images of the Wii and its official accessories (protected by registered designs, e.g. here and here) in the sale of these goods. Nintendo took both entities to court in Germany for design infringement.

The CJEU faced three questions in the matter, specifically dealing with whether the court of a Member State has jurisdiction over the matter where the infringement happened elsewhere; is this use allowed as citation under EU law; and how the place of infringement would be determined.

The first question, as summarized by the court, asked in essence whether the Community Designs Regulation (along with Article 6(1) of the Jurisdiction Regulation) gives jurisdiction to a court to impose an injunction against a party who is supplied by another party in another Member State for infringement of a registered design.


The CJEU first dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. Article 82 of the Community Designs Regulation sets out that "…claims fall primarily within the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled or, if he is not domiciled in any of the Member States, in any Member State in which he has an establishment". This can also include the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed or is threatened. For Article 6 of the Jurisdiction Regulation to apply there has to be a connection between various defendants in different jurisdictions "…that it is expedient to determine those actions together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings". The court also highlighted that, under case law, two companies in the same group acting in an identical or similar manner would constitute the same situation of fact.

According to the CJEU, "…the territorial jurisdiction of a Community design court seised of an action for infringement within the meaning of Article 81(a)… extends throughout the European Union also in respect of the defendant who is not domiciled in the Member State of the forum". This means that there would be no jurisdictional issue with regards to pursuing a company in a different Member State through a national court within the EU.

The court then moved onto the second issue of use of the design as a citation. The question posed to the court, in short, asked whether Article 20 of the Community Designs Regulation meant that the use of a registered design by a third party, without authorisation, to demonstrate goods being sold online would be use as a citation and therefore allowed.

Burt definitely needed a citation (Source: xkcd)

The CJEU first looked at the meaning of 'citation'. They emphasised the designs' use for an illustrative purpose, in that "…a third party that lawfully sells goods intended to be used with specific goods corresponding to Community designs and reproduces the latter in order to explain or demonstrate the joint use of the goods it sells and a product corresponding to a protected design carries out an act of reproduction for the purpose of making ‘citations'". The use, however, would be assessed using three cumulative conditions: "…the compatibility of the acts of reproduction with fair trade practice, the absence of undue prejudice to the normal exploitation of the design on account of such acts and mention of the source".

The first condition look at whether the reproduction of the design falls within 'honest practices in industrial or commercial matters', i.e. should the design be reproduced in such a way as to create an impression of a commercial connection between the two entities, it would not be made for the purpose of citation. The second condition concerns the reproduction of the design that negatively affects the economic interest or their normal exploitation by the rightsholder. The third condition is simply attribution, so that a reasonable and observant consumer will know the design's commercial origin.

The court concluded that in the matter at hand the reproduction would be for the purpose of citation if it fulfils all of the above conditions.

Finally, the court addressed the last question of where the infringement would be committed between the two group companies, as the group companies reside and have committed infringements in several EU Member States. The CJEU, having considered the legislative framework, considered that "…the ‘country in which the act of infringement was committed’ within the meaning of Article 8(2) of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that it refers to the country where the event giving rise to the damage occurred, namely the country on whose territory the act of infringement was committed". This hones down the legislation as applying to where the act was committed, rather than the damage occurring (i.e. infringement in Germany damaging a country in France).

As acknowledged by the court, IP does leave this interpretation as difficult, since the act could happen in a variety of locations in one time. In the light of this, the CJEU set out that "… where the same defendant is accused of various acts of infringement falling under the concept of ‘use’ within the meaning of Article 19(1) of [the Community Designs Regulation] in various Member States, the correct approach for identifying the event giving rise to the damage is not to refer to each alleged act of infringement, but to make an overall assessment of that defendant’s conduct in order to determine the place where the initial act of infringement at the origin of that conduct was committed or threatened". In the situation in the current matter, the place where the goods were put on sale online would be where the infringement took place.

 The CJEU's decision is a very interesting one, and while they made no assessment on the particular infringements in the case, it still gives national courts the tools to do so themselves in a more flexible manner rather than just designating each infringement in its respective country. This will make the assessment of infringement, and similarly of citation, much clearer for the future.

Toblenone - The Battle of the Peaks Begins Over the Toblerone Shape

Imitation is thought to be the greatest form of flattery, but in the world of IP, this is often the opposite of the case. Copying the looks of a product can be quite beneficial for the copying company, riding on the coattails of a potentially well-known look of a product, especially if they are undercutting the price of the original. This blog has discussed issues of generic packaging before, and the notorious KitKat saga, but none of the cases have looked at the matter of changing the shape of the original product, yet still seeking protection over the shape.

A recent case discussed in the Guardian has shed a new perspective, as discussed above, relating to the Toblerone chocolate bar. Poundland, a UK discount retailer selling products predominantly at £1, launched their Toblerone competitor Twin Peaks earlier this summer, aiming to compete against the reduced size Toblerone bar. This change featured bigger gaps in the Toblerone bar between the iconic triangular peaks, due to rising ingredient prices.

The matter has since gone to court, with Mondelez (the company that owns the Toblerone brand) arguing (possibly among other grounds) trademark infringement. Poundland have counterclaimed (possibly among other grounds) for invalidity and argued that "…the triangular prism shape of the Toblerone bar, which was registered under an EU trademark in 1997, is no longer distinctive partly because of the existence of the new version". Adding to this, they argued that "…any good reputation enjoyed by the Toblerone bar trademark has been “irretrievably abandoned” by the launch of the product with bigger gaps between its nine chunks, which the public “consider unfavourably in comparison”".

Mondelez put a wholly different spin
on the change to the Toblerone bar

The crux of the question is therefore whether the trademark registered by Toblerone (EUTM 31237) would no longer be distinctive due to the change in the Toblerone chocolate bar, and even if it's distinctive, whether the Twin Peaks bar creates a different impression so as to not infringe on the trademark or other possible rights under common law.

Arguably, Poundland potentially do have a point. The Toblerone bar has reduced its size by about 10%, and changed its shape from the registered 12 peaks to 11, with the gaps between the peaks has doubled by this writer's estimate. The base of the bar has also arguably become thinner. The Twin Peaks bar does not feature the wider gaps of the new Toblerone bar, including having a curved gap rather than a flat one, and splits the peaks into two. The Twin Peaks bar is also sold in a loosely fitting wrapper packaging, rather than a hard triangular cardboard package.

Case law has looked at changes to earlier registrations, and it does not necessarily bode well for Toblerone. In The Coca-Cola Company v OHIM the cola manufacturer changed the look of their iconic bottle, removing its distinctive fluting, and due to this change the EU General Court rejected their application for a lack of acquired distinctiveness, as "…[the bottle] was a mere variant of the shape and packaging of the goods concerned, which would not enable the average consumer to distinguish the goods from those of other undertakings". It is possible for the registration to be attacked (although the name and the triangular packaging will still arguably remain protected), so Toblerone would benefit from a new registration for the reduced size bar, unless it is simply treated as a stop-gap while prices are still high for some ingredients.

The Toblerone question is a very curious one, and this writer for one would love to see the case actually go to court (but heavily doubts this will happen). The point of changing the shape of a product with an existing trademark registration hasn't been dealt with by the judiciary much at all, so more light on this issue would be very helpful for both would-be registrants and competitors alike.

Source: The Guardian

Not Taking a Break - EU General Court Sends Kit Kat TM for Reconsideration at EUIPO

The Kit Kat chocolate bar trademark saga is one that seems to just keep on giving and giving to the IP community, offering new and fangled ways where the iconic (or dare we might now say the opposite) chocolate bar has been fought over in Europe. After a hard-fought several rounds in the CJEU and the UK courts, it all seemed all over; however, the EU General Court offered us a new judgment as an early Christmas present in mid-December.

The case of Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v EUIPO dealt with an EU registered trademark (2632529) for a three-dimensional mark comprising of the Kit Kat chocolate bar without any markings. The mark was subsequently challenged by Nestle's favorite candy competitor, Cadbury (now owned by Mondelez), and the matter has since ultimately ended up in the General Court, largely dealing with lack of use and distinctive character.

The GC only concerned itself with Article 52(2) of the Community Trade mark Regulation, in conjunction with Article 7(3), which set out that a trademark, even if potentially found invalid, might still be registrable should the mark have acquired a distinctive character with respect to the goods and services covered. Mondelez argued that the EUIPO had failed to correctly assess this distinctive character (allowing the mark to be registered), and directed their argumentation in four separate parts.

The Court initially dealt with the second part of their plea argues that the mark had not been used for all of the relevant goods it was registered for. The Board of Appeal had seen that, based on the evidence submitted, the mark had been used for all of the goods listed above. This assessment, according to the GC, would be done "...in relation, on the one hand, to the goods or services in respect of which registration has been sought and, on the other, to the presumed perception of the mark by an average consumer of the category of goods or services in question, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect". Any proof employed would have to be viewed independently within the context of sub-sections within the broad terms of goods to identify whether the mark has been used for those goods.

Gilbert always forgot what his chocolate bars looked like

Under the evidence supplied, the GC did concede that the Kit Kat mark had been used for the majority of the goods listed; however, saw that it had equally not been used for bakery products, pastries, cakes and waffles, since the advertising materials only showed biscuit-like, chocolate treats with no real bakery goods included at all. This was deemed an error on the part of the Board of Appeal.

The first part of the plea dealt with a lack of use of the mark in the form as registered, and therefore would only stem from the branding or the use of other marks in conjunction with the contested mark. The EU courts have previously held that a 3D mark can acquire distinctive character even if used with other marks, as long as the public distinguishes the product from originating from a particular source as a result. The GC quickly rejected this argument, as surveys indicated a high percentage of individuals identifying the brand from just the shape alone.

They then moved onto the third part of the plea, which argues that there is a lack of use of the mark as an indicator of origin and insufficient evidence to that effect. The latter point would be assessed based on evidence showing that a significant portion of the public identifies the mark as an indicator of origin, which entails in it several factors, including market share and duration of use. The GC rejected this argument as well, having extensively discussed the evidence submitted and its application to the matter at hand, illustrating a clear recognition of the mark as an indicator of origin for those particular goods, and that it was sufficient to overcome this plea.

Finally, the fourth part of the plea asserted a lack of proof of distinctive character acquired through use of the contested trade mark throughout the European Union. Mondelez contested that, as Nestle only provided evidence with respect to 10 Member States out of 15, the Board of Appeal should not have extrapolated from that evidence applicable to the entire EU (with the Board only finding evidence of distinctive character for 5 being sufficient for the whole of the EU). According to established EU case law, a mark needs to have distinctive character in the whole of the EU, and would fail to be registered should it not have it for a part of the EU, even one single Member State. Evidence provided needs to be quantitively sufficient to prove distinctive character in the Member States concerned. The GC corrected the Board of Appeal's approach in assessing this, and set out that "…the relevant question is not whether it was shown that a substantial proportion of the public in the European Union, merging all the Member States and regions, perceived a mark as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods designated by that mark, but whether, throughout the European Union, it was proved that a significant proportion of the relevant public perceived a mark as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods designated by that mark".

The GC allowed this part of the first plea, determining that a lack of evidence for the rest of the Member States would mean that the mark has not been established to have distinctive character in the entire EU, and the registration is therefore invalid and would have to be re-examined.

The case is a very curious one, and highlights a potential big issue for applicants when it comes to evidencing the distinctive character in the entire EU. With surveys and other evidence gathering exercises being costly both monetarily and time wise, and newer launches in other territories being a hindrance for proving distinctive character. In the end, the threshold should be high; however, this writer would be a firm believer in statistics, especially for more notable, established brands, and would want more flexibility at the EUIPO (although, understanding the risks associated with giving away trademarks like candy). It will remain to be seen whether the case is appealed, and this writer would not want to see the fight for chocolate bars to ever end.

Source: Reuters

All Packed Up - UK Supreme Court Rejects Trunki Appeal

Community Registered Designs rarely get their time in the spotlight, but the Supreme Court's decision on the Trunki saga has been one that many intellectual property practitioners have been waiting for. The case is an important one, and sets the tone for the future of 3D registrations as designs, potentially impacting the vast amount of CRDs that use these types of illustrations (mainly through the use of CAD imaging) as their registration. With bated breath this writer awaited the decision, which was published yesterday.

The case of PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Limited dealt with the Trunki travel case, designed by Robert Law in the late 1990s (at the time called the 'Rodeo'). The case is intended for kids, allowing them to ride the suitcase as well as use it in its traditional sense, incorporating child-friendly animal themes in its finished look. Mr. Law subsequently sought registration for the design, and attained his CRD in 2003 (No. 43427-0001), exclusively licencing the sale and manufacture of the design to Magmatic Limited, his own company. The registration used CAD imaging in the illustration of the Trunki suitcase, using a degree of tonal contrast to showcase the different components of the design (incorporating no decorations apart from the tonal differentiation of the wheels, "horns" and the strap at the top, for example). PMS International, having noted the success of the Trunki case, designed and manufactured its own version called the Kiddee Case, which incorporated a very similar design and child-friendly decorations (although, as the Court noted, with some distinct elements in the decorations and/or colors used). Magmatic then started the proceedings over the infringement of their design, ultimately culminating in the Supreme Court's decision.

What the Supreme Court had to answer was whether the Kiddee Case "...produce[s] on the informed user a different overall impression" from the registered Trunki design, therefore not infringing the design. This includes, to put it plainly, the appearance of the two products, especially in the light of the features shown in the CRD, reflecting the choices of the applicant at the time of filing (restricting or broadening the registration based on the inclusion or exclusion of features and/or ornamentation).

The Court had to deal with the disagreement between Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Kitchin in the first instance and appeal decisions, which dealt with the absence of ornamentation and the effect of the included two-toned coloring in the CRD documentation as detailed above. Lord Neuberger, handing down the unanimous decision of the Court, dealt with the disagreements in three parts, discussing each affecting element individually per the Court of Appeal's decision.

The horned animal appearance

In the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Kitchin considered that Justice Arnold had not fully given weight to the overall impression of the CRD as a 'horned animal', and the distinction between it and the more 'insect' appearance of the Kiddee Case, resulting in the Kiddee Case not infringing the design.

The Supreme Court agreed with Lord Justice Kitchin, and determined that Justice Arnold had not given proper weight to the overall appearance of the two cases. This is clearly a subjective assessment on Lord Neuberger's part, and this writer, although can see his point, will disagree that the judge did not consider the overall impression. Justice Arnold seemed to focus on the suitcase shape of the CRD, rather than its fanciful impression, and both perspectives can be accepted, however, he did not entirely dismiss the impression the design made as an animal or creature with 'horns'.

Decoration of the Kiddee Case

Similarly, Lord Justice Kitchin disagreed with Justice Arnold on the ornamentation of the Kiddee Case, and the lack thereof in the CRD. In his mind, the lack of ornamentation made the overall impression of the CRD seem more like a horned animal, whereas the ornamentation in the Kiddee Case highlighted its distinction from the former as a bug with antennae (or a tiger with ears), forming a wholly different impression on an informed user.

Intricate design or not, Trevor struggled with suitcases

The Supreme Court, again, agreed with Lord Justice Kitchin, confirming that "...the absence of decoration on the CRD reinforced the horned animal impression made by the CRD". Lord Neuberger did, however, consider that the inclusion of some ornamentation could potentially detract from the overall impression given as a horned animal, if sufficiently distinctive or eye-catching. This writer would wholly disagree with Lord Neuberger, and thinks that the lack of ornamentation should focus the inspection on the non-fanciful elements of the infringing product, and should not be included in the consideration of overall impression. What is important in the CRD is the shape or design of the product, and the lack of ornamentation should focus the assessment on just that, the design, rather than additional elements that can (arguably) be irrelevant to the design of an item, rather than its aesthetic appearance.

Lord Neuberger did address the appellant's concerns over the lack of ornamentation and its impact on a CRD (or in subsequent infringement actions), albeit obiter. In his mind the "... absence of decoration can, as a matter of principle, be a feature of a registered design" and that "...if absence of ornamentation is a feature of a registered design, that does not mean that because an item has ornamentation, it cannot, for that reason alone, infringe the registered design in question: it merely means that the fact that an allegedly infringing item has ornamentation is a factor which can be taken into account when deciding whether or not it does infringe that design".

His Lordship focused on the images as CAD images, rather than line drawings, and determined that the lack of ornamentation (although including colors and/or textures) would be treated as potentially distinguishing in the former, but not the latter. The inclusion of ornamentation reinforced the former point on distinction as different creatures, rather than be a full point of contention in its own right. He concluded that (again, obiter) "...the point of principle [is] that absence of ornamentation can be a feature of a Community Registered Design".

The two-toned coloring of the CRD

The final point of contention was Lord Justice Kitchin's disagreement in the use of tonal colors in the CRD, meaning the difference in color (gray and black) in some features, like the wheels or the strap on top. In his mind, the difference is an intention to include contrasting colors, rather than to simply distinguish the components, which implies a desire to use those contrasting colors in the actual registration as defining features. This brought into focus the color scheme of the Kiddee Case, further impacting the above assessment on its overall impression through these ornamental features. Arguably one can agree with the Supreme Court here, as the inclusion of different colors will be taken as that, even if the clear intention to differentiate the parts was not there at the time the application was drafted. Whether this is necessary or useful for the purposes of CAD drawings is beyond this writer's knowledge, but would be an interesting aspect of discussion if this is indeed the case.

Lord Neuberger agreed with Lord Justice Kitchin, and saw that the inclusion of contrasting colors in the registration (with or without the intent to do so) bares a need for the items to be compared in the same vein, i.e. through an assessment of not only shape, but color as well. He concluded that "...the design claimed in this case was for a wheeled suitcase in the shape of a horned animal, but that it was not a claim for the shape alone, but for one with a strap, strips and wheels and spokes in a colour (or possibly colours) which contrasted with that of the remainder of the product". The Supreme Court therefore upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, and saw that the Kiddee Case did not infringe the CRD and made a different overall impression to the Trunki.

The Supreme Court also rejected a referral to the Court of Justice of the EU, determining that there is no question that requires answering, even in the light of the consideration that a lack of ornamentation could be a feature, which will remain a point of contention.

The case clearly will alter CRD practice, especially when CAD images are quite often used as the basis of the registration (with line drawings clearly being the preferred option from now on). What this writer finds perplexing is the lack of concrete answers, especially in the light of the question of a lack of ornamentation as a feature, and further laments the Supreme Court's rejection of a referral to the CJEU on these points. Lord Neuberger restricted his comments to obiter only, and a lack of referral will leave this question in the shade for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the Trunki saga has been an eventful one, and this writer has enjoyed the ride, but is saddened by the Supreme Court's lack of answers and an arguable wrong outcome.

The Origin of IP - Historical Protection of Intellectual Property

The protection of your rights through intellectual property law is not by any means a modern-day quirk, stemming from hundreds of years of (varying levels of) protection or acknowledgement. Many of us who work with IP within the common law are more than familiar with the Statute of Anne in 1709, which offered the predecessor to today's protection of copyright, and the 'renaissance' of monopolizing intellectual efforts outside of pure monetary exclusion, and the Statute of Monopolies a few decades before it. Even so, one could imagine that there would be more historical, potentially ancient considerations containing IP protection, which begs the question: where are the historical origins of IP protection?

Copyright

As said above, the Statute of Anne was truly the first manifestation of the modern regime of copyright protection in the UK, and subsequently all over the common law, due to its wide-spread adoption within England's (former) colonies. However, the Statute was not the only incarnation of copyright protection in the world up till that date.

According to historical records, one of the first forms of protection for copyright works (as one could argue they were) was in 500 BC when chefs in Sybaris, a Greek colony in Italy, were afforded a monopoly for a year on the creation of specific recipes. Although, indirectly at least, copyright works, this suggests that it could be one of the first instances of copyright protection (more on which can be read here in a modern context). Similarly a few hundred years later, Vitruvius, a Roman author, successfully convicted some poets who had copied and passed off others' works as their own.

Some ancient thinkers were ahead of their time

Both the Romans and the Greeks, especially in the context of comedies, distinguished the appropriation and copying of works by other authors as theft ('furtum'). However, they still allowed for the compilation of two or more plays into one, and even criticism of other works, which were seen as corner-stones of the betterment of knowledge, science and overall the retention of intellectual output.

These examples do not showcase a concrete systematic protection of copyright during ancient times, but illustrates that, even though not protected by law, the unique expression of authors was seen as highly valuable and thus something worth protecting. One can imagine the roots of our current system stemming from ideologies that the Greeks and Romans held dear, and this writer, for one, would like to think this was one of the first steps into the foray of IP in human history.

Trademarks

Trademarks, as many of you will be aware, serve as an indicator of the origin and quality of goods and services, providing an observant consumer the goods and services they have duly paid for. The history of registered trademarks in the UK dates back to the 1800s, with Bass Brewery's iconic triangle being the very first one to be registered under the Trade Marks Registration Act 1875. Even so, our historical predecessors had already used trademarks to great effect before the Act's introduction.

In Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, potters often marked their pottery with distinctive signs (referred to as 'potter's marks'), showing who had made it, and undoubtedly, signalling the craftsmanship associated with that particular item and its maker (examples can be seen here). Although these marks did not serve the same purpose as modern trademarks do, one could argue that, even though they were not a legally protected badge of origin, they were akin to their modern counterparts. Seemingly these marks were never enforced, but one can imagine they potentially were a deciding factor for those who would purchase the items.

Patents

The more modern concept of patents derives itself from the 1470s, when the Italian City State of Venice granted 10 year patents to anyone who would make a new and ingenious contrivance in the city of Venice, and notified the State Judicial Office of their invention. The Statute of Monopolies 1623 followed some 150 years later, but the Venetian initiative paved the way for patents as we know it today.

The UK, however, was not entirely outdone by their Italian counterparts, and patents did exist before the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies. Letters of patents could be issued, and duly were, by the Monarchy, and one of the first recorded instances was in 1331. Although not only a way to protect inventions, also conveying monopolies in corporations, titles and other royal grants, they still illustrate the importance of inventions even over 100 years before the enactment of the Venetian patent law.

Conclusion

IP clearly has a long and colorful history, and this only highlights its importance not only in today's world, but for years to come. Whether you are a believer in the common ownership and free dissemination of information, or the protector of the monetary incentives many aspiring (and successful) artists, musicians, inventors and creators often need, you have to appreciate the value that IP gives to all of us. Without our Greek, Roman and Venetian predecessors, who knows what IP laws would look like today.

Generic Stuff - Food Packaging and Intellectual Property Law

Remembering back fondly to ones childhood often elicits images of Saturday mornings, watching cartoons and eating cereal poured from colorful cereal boxes. Yet a shadows of this memory is when your parents buy the generic brand, often simply grabbing something from a store shelf thinking it's the brand that their child loves, missing the folly in their ignorance and disappointing their young ones with less flavorful alternatives to their desired sugary morning treats. Thinking back, the disappointment probably was not as palpable as my memory serves me, but this illustrates a point of contention in intellectual property law; how close can you brand your foodstuffs as a generic brand when compared to more popular variants of a given food item? The goodwill and reputation, which many food manufacturers strive for for years, even decades, often seems easily exploited in the sphere of food packaging, yet, at least prima facie, their goodwill and make-up should potentially be well within the sphere of intellectual property law, and therefore quite protectable. The extent of this protection merits further discussion, especially in today's highly competitive world within the shopping jungle of grocery stores.

What prompted this writer's interest in this topic was an article published on the IPKat (originally brought up in an article on Yahoo! News), which discussed the seemingly blatant copying of popular brand items by Aldi in their store brand equivalents, especially in the remit of chips sold in a tubular container, and the mentioned use of similar packaging in cereals. Could Aldi's practices infringe on the brands' rights in the UK or abroad?

Some protection could be offered by copyright, should the packaging contain a work which can be categorized as protectable under the subject matter. Images on packaging, or even more stylistic or intricate designs, could potentially be considered an artistic work under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (and similar laws abroad), and even the writing used on the box (stories, challenges and other items on the back for example). The image has to have no artistic merit to it for it to be protected, but still has to be considered original. Although not the primary avenue for protecting packaging, it can still address the issue at a much shallower level. Arguably most goods will not infringe on copyright, even if they resemble the name brand goods quite a lot, as you would have to make a copy of the work (in simplistic terms), and a mere imitation might not be enough to argue copyright infringement, as a box for foodstuffs would be a long-shot to argue as a form of expression worth protecting.

Trademarks, under the Trademarks Act 1994 (and other similar provisions), are the more 'obvious' choice when it comes to protecting your brands, and certain foodstuffs are covered under the subject matter such as the name "Pringles" or "Froot Loops". Primarily trademarks only assist in the protection of names and logos (such as Captain Rik), and as such are much weaker when the logo, name or other trademark isn't directly copied or a similar variant used. Clearly, should Aldi (or any other business) deviate from those, they would arguably be in the clear.

The darker side of store brands: underpaid mascots

As for design rights, unregistered designs under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988  protect the shape or configuration of a good; i.e. how it looks like form wise, and not in terms of it's 'get-up'. This would be hard for Aldi (or others) to infringe unless a good has a very specific shape to it, such as a triangle box in stead of the typical box design. Under the registered designs regime through the Registered Designs Act 1949, a design can be registered should the appearance in part or as a whole have a specific look to it, including colors, shapes and even textures. The design has to have individual character, which can be simply said to entail something which is unique to that product, and isn't too generic, while also having to be novel. Arguably this is the hurdle where most foodstuff packaging stumbles in registered designs, as it would be nearly impossible to say that merely a certain color scheme or variation thereof would be novel and individual to that particular item. This in mind it is very possible for generic brands to imitate the look of a cereal box, even if the color scheme would be very identifiable for that particular brand.

In the US there is the concept of what is often referred to as 'trade dress', which is protected under 15 USC section 1125, making it quite usable in this instance, although not in a UK context. Under the Act a product can infringe upon the trade dress of another product under certain circumstances: "[If it] is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or... in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities". Arguably this would be very hard to prove, at least prima facie, but should a brand take the time and effort to compile sufficient evidence as to likely confusion and detriment on their end, trade dress could be a useful tool in the area of consumer goods. In the UK an avenue functioning much akin to the US provision above would be passing off (discussed more in depth on this very blog here); however the threshold of proof required is very hard to overcome, especially in an instance where the passing off isn't obvious and clear.

As one can see the world of consumer goods and foodstuffs is a treacherous and difficult area of law in which to wage your battles, and arguably most brand owners will not benefit in fighting this fight. Superior quality, goodwill and marketing will serve a better purpose than paying your lawyers to take on Aldi for its generic items; however as a legal professional it is a bit of a no-no to admit this. One can still appreciate the impact of generic goods and confusion related to them, with studies indicating that consumers are very likely to buy store brand products when they look like the name brand item, and a relatively high percentage of purchases having been mistakes due to the similarities. In the end this would be a matter which would have to be addressed by the legislature, but in a competitive world having choice and a cheaper option can still be good for business and the consumer - just not necessarily the brand owner.

The Intellectual Property Act 2014 - Thoughts

After a myriad of changes in recent years, more specifically in copyright (more on which on this very blog can be found here, here, here and here), one can seem overwhelmed by the constant updates and tweaking intellectual property law has gone through. Just as things have seemed to settle down new changes have to be discussed, although this writer will wholly admit he is a bit late to the punch on this one (as the law was passed over a month ago). Nevertheless, a new piece of legislation has been passed, the Intellectual Property Act 2014, which is coming into force in a matter of weeks, prompting this writer to expand on its potential impact prior to it becoming solid law. The Act focuses on designs and patents, which shall be discussed separately below.

Designs

By far the bulk of the legislation, designs have been needing some revamping and adding to, even though they are quite well protected under the current Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Registered Designs Act 1949. As explained by the UK IPO: "Design law is often considered messy, complex and confusing, and small businesses, who don’t have the time or resources to disentangle it, can lose out. The IP Act will introduce a number of new measures and make some changes to the law in order to make design law simpler, clearer and more robust".

In terms of unregistered designs the Act changes the definition of a design from (in the CDPA 1988) "...the design of any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or part of an article" to one which omits the phrase '...any aspect of'. Although a seemingly minute change, the law now reflects in a more concrete fashion what is considered a design and what isn't as a part of the legislation, whereas should you leave the phrase in it makes things a bit more ambiguous. This clearly reflects the legislature's attempt at making things more straightforward, and arguably they have done so, at least on the face of things.

The Act also changes the default ownership of an unregistered design, allowing for the designer to be the owner of their design should it not be made in the course of their employment. The Act omits the phrase "...in pursuance of a commission or" from the previous provision in the CDPA 1988, which clearly gave ownership to those who commissioned the work, even if rights were not intended to be conferred upon the creation of a design. This will undoubtedly lower any confusion or potential issues of ownership, though does lower the protection of the individuals or entities which commission a work unless specifically assigned to them as a part of the commission contract. Ownership is also extended to persons who reside in the European Union (i.e. a qualifying country) at large, or conduct business in the Union regularly. Previously this was much more narrow under the CDPA 1988.

Finally, in relation to unregistered designs, the Act creates exceptions for infringement of a design right for private acts, experimentation and teaching, and over ships and aircraft. This exception is more relevant to the new form of infringement, which was created to protect registered designs.

Nothing gets a designer's creative juices flowing like new legislation

All of the above changes largely apply to registered designs as well, with some minor differences; however the most important, and discussion inducing, change has been the addition of the aforementioned infringement of registered design rights. Should a person or a business copy a design (without the consent of the rights' holder), doing so intentionally and with knowledge or have reason to believe the design is registered, they can be held liable for infringement. The offense also extends to businesses selling, importing, exporting, or uses items which they know or have reason to believe have copied a registered design. Prima facie the offenses seem quite broad, and with a defense of only reasonable belief to the items' registration status, can be potentially quite wide-reaching, especially in relation to businesses selling or exporting goods. An infringer can face up to ten years' imprisonment and/or a fine. This can be said to be a welcomed change, in that designs have lacked a proper offense provision, which trademarks and copyright have had for years.

In the light of the new offense the Act does allow for third parties to use registered designs, should they have done so in good faith and prior to the work's registration. This is assessed under the light of proper measures taken to ensure the design is or was free to use, preventing others from using this provision as merely a guise to protect themselves from infringement.

Finally, the Act allows for design registrants to finally apply for one single design registration within the remit of the Hague Convention registration system, streamlining and enabling quicker, more efficient registration of designs in a more international scale. 

Patents

The Act makes minor, yet important changes to the current patent regime, explained by the UK IPO in better terms: "The IP Act will introduce a number of changes to patent law, which simplify complex areas and make it cheaper and easier to use and defend patents. This will be beneficial for both patent holders and third parties". 

The IP Act also adds a provision which will add specific powers allowing for the inclusion of the Unified Patent Court as a part of the patent protection scheme in the UK. This will allow for a much quicker, more unified approach to processing any claims of patent infringement, as it spans the entire 25 Member States of the EU in the scheme. In addition to the Unified Patent Court the Act also allows for the sharing of unpublished patent applications with other patent offices through the UK IPO, which would allow for potential issues to be processed quicker and unclog the international system more. 

Conclusion

Overall the IP Act makes some welcome changes, and at least attempts to internationalize and streamline both patents and designs; something which has been, at least on the patent regime, long needed. Whether the new design infringement provision will cause issues will remain to be seen; however this writer for one believes it will strengthen the registered design scheme and potentially deter cases where infringement would be obvious. The Act will come into force in October, giving relevant parties enough time to prepare for any changes that affect them.

Source: Eversheds

Retrospective - Intention to Use Trademarks

Often in business it pays off to preempt what might be the next big thing, especially when it comes to names. The right timing can yield quite the monetary results, even if such predatory practices could be argued to linger outside of what is acceptable. To limit the potential hoarding of signs which could be used as trademarks, most common law legislatures have enacted provisions preventing such practices, such as in the United Kingdom and Australia for example. Under such provisions a mark has to be used, or intended to be used, as a trademark for it to be eligible for protection as such. Without proper use, or the compulsion to do so, companies would hoard any and all marks they could, with no intent to use them, only to sue for infringement if others would use that mark even when they are not doing so themselves. Even with the existence of such provisions, the question still remains as to what counts as an intention to use in the absence of actual usage; a question which was subsequently answered in the 1980s.

The case in question is Imperial Group v Philip Morris & Co, decided in the very beginning of the 80s. This concerned the prior Trade Marks Act 1938; however the provision in question is still in the currently in force Trade Marks Act 1994, and would apply equally in relation to the more modern legislation. The case concerned the word "NERIT", which was successfully registered by Philip Morris. Their registration of the word was a result of an unsuccessful attempt to register the word "MERIT" in relation to tobacco products; a mark which was rejected due to it being a laudatory and thus, descriptive word. In their mind the registration of the word "NERIT" would be close enough to be used to enforce against any uses of the word "MERIT" should their competition adopt or use the word in relation to competing products. To further legitimize the mark, Philip Morris sold roughly 1 million cigarettes under the name "NERIT", although had no real interest in using the mark as a legitimate trademark aside from its potential use against anyone using the word "MERIT". Subsequently Imperial Group challenged the mark, having used the word "MERIT" in relation to their cigarettes, and the case finally ended up in the UK Court of Appeals.

Mark loved to dress up as a ghost

In its deliberation the Court of Appeals saw that Philip Morris' mark was merely a ghost mark, with no real intention to be used as a legitimate trademark, and was registered under bad faith, contrary to the Trade Marks Act 1938. For a trademark to be considered legitimate under the legislation it must be used "...in the normal course of trade", and not merely under the guise of use through the manufacture of a small batch in order to legitimize the mark or its use. What the plaintiff had was merely a ghost mark. To further illustrate the intent by the plaintiff in the matter, the Court saw that "[t]hey wanted to treat the word "MERIT" as if they had a copyright interest in it"; which they clearly did not have. The Court of Appeal in the end determined that the word "NERIT" was not registered bona fide, and clearly not used for a legitimate commercial purpose and therefore would not be allowed as a registered trademark.

As one can see the use of trademarks is complex, and predatory registrations are no longer allowed. Registration of ghost marks was common practice before the Imperial Group decision, and clearly the case illustrates a well-needed adjustment from those practices. Should frivolous marks, or unused marks, be allowed to be registered by anyone, their function as a badge of origin could potentially cease to exist, and would only serve as a means to prevent others from trading through legitimate marks. The Imperial Group case has been decided in a multitude of countries, such as Australia, with similar results, clearly showcasing the common law's position in relation to modern trademark law with regards to ghost marks.

Christmas and Intellectual Property Law

I'd like to personally wish everyone a very merry Christmas 2013, not forgetting those who don't celebrate this holiday, so happy Holidays to you too! In the spirit of the festivities I wanted to take a quick look at Christmas and its relation to intellectual property law. Even though the holiday is incredibly old (with further ties to pagan traditions aside from its religious connotation), it still ties in very deeply with modern intellectual property rights in a lot of ways.

The more notable image of Christmas these days is arguably the Coca-Cola campaigns which hit the scene every year. Some efforts have been made to thwart St. Nick's ties with the popular soda pop brand, with little or no damage done to the association between the two, especially during Christmas. The image of Santa in the Coca-Cola adverts is actually protected as a registered trademark; something which most people will not necessarily think of. The popular image was concocted by Haddon Sundblom in 1931 for the beverage company - having been used for almost a century. For a more Coca-Cola oriented history of old St. Nicholas, please refer to their 5 Things You Never Knew About Santa Claus and Coca-Cola article from 2012.

Some of St. Nick's weight could be attributed to his choice of beverage

Certain songs also evoke feelings of Christmases past, sitting around with your family and enjoying the season in the ways you had done for years, maybe even generations. Classics like "We Wish You a Merry Christmas", dating back to the 19th century, and "The Twelve Days of Christmas", dating all the way back to the 16th century, are a part of the holiday for most cultures which celebrate them all over the world. These songs have long since passed their copyright prime; however newer renditions of older songs or even modern creations still may remain under copyright. For example a very popular song in the US for the Spanish speaking community is the song "Feliz Navidad", and the song "Frosty the Snowman" both remain protected under copyright, limiting their use even during the season. This has very little impact on people overall, but still remains a notable thing for most. A selection of song remain very popular during Christmas, and showcase quite well how important the public domain is, and how profitable it also can be.

As one can see Christmas is still very entwined with intellectual property rights, even in the modern day. This should still not serve as a deterrent for your own personal celebrations. I hope you will all have a great break from work, enjoy some quality time with those who you love and remember, 'tis the season of giving. Have a happy end of the year!

Color Me Purple - Cadbury Trademark Ends on Appeal

Colors have always been an interesting area of trademark legislation, and to the layman more often than not, something which proves to be inconceivable. In a world where distinguishing your goods from other similar ones is imperative, and can prove to be a vehicle of imitation if you are not careful (more of which can be read here). In the latter part of 2012, Cadbury successfully had their trademark on the color purple (a variant of the color to be more specific) upheld by the court, in the field of chocolate, which was subsequently appealed by the initial challenging party, Nestle.

On appeal, which was decided earlier this month, the court had a further look at the issue of whether the color purple could be trademarked in this instance. In the Court of Appeal's opinion the Hearing Officer, the initial body responsible for the approval of trademarks in the UK, erred in his decision to allow the color to be registered. More specifically, the error "...stems from the misinterpretation of the verbal description of the graphic representation of the mark for which application is made... i.e. being the predominant colour applied to the whole visible surface".

In the Court of Appeals judgment, the description given by Cadbury "...[when] properly interpreted, does not constitute "a sign" that is "graphically represented" within Article 2 [of the Trade Marks Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008]. If the colour purple is less than total, as would be the case if the colour is only "predominant", the application would cover other matter in combination with the color, but not graphically represented or verbally described in the specific, certain, self-contained and precise manner required". Due to the fact that Cadbury had used the word 'predominant' in their description, the description was not sufficiently clear to be accepted as a 'sign' under the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 and the EU Directive. Cadbury used the color purple in a multitude of products, associating other elements with it along with the color purple, thus creating a multitude of variants of that sign,  making the sign unclear.

Purple was George's favorite color. No one could've guessed.

To summarize the Court saw that "[t]o allow a registration so lacking in specificity, clarity and precision of visual appearance would offend against the principle of certainty. It would also offend against the principle of fairness by giving a competitive advantage to Cadbury and by putting Nestlé and its other competitors at a disadvantage". Clearly one can agree with the Court in their decision, as the registration of a color in itself is acceptable; however should it only be an element amongst other elements, it would not be a sign that distinguishes that product by itself. This is highlighted by such cases as Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Société des Produits Nestlé SA, where the color used was clearly the sign used (although the case in question did include other factors, such as the color's creation by Mars) and would distinguish the goods from others.

Source: Bloomberg