Albright IP Limited

Protecting your innovation

+44 (0)1242 691 801

Speak to a UK and European Patent and Trade Mark Attorney

Carry On…Using Your Trade Mark!

by

Branding Trade Mark

 

The “use it or lose it” principle with regards to trade mark registrations applies in numerous jurisdictions around the world. However, as highlighted in a recent decision of the UKIPO involving three Trade Marks relating to the British “Carry On” film series, it may not be as straightforward as one might think. For instance, how easy is it to prove valid use of a Trade Mark where that Mark is used under a licence, and in conjunction with another Mark?

 

This most recent “Carry On” caper begins in April 2018, whereby Brian Baker applied for revocation of three UK Trade Marks for “Carry On”, on the basis of non-use. ITV Studios Limited, proprietor of the “Carry On” Marks, was tasked with proving use of their Marks. The “Carry On” Marks were the subject of numerous internal and external licence agreements. After evaluating the evidence of use submitted by the proprietor, the Hearing Officer found in favour of Mr Baker. Two of the three Marks in question were invalidated in-part, with the remaining Mark being invalidated entirely.

 

On the face of it, you could be forgiven for thinking that proving actual use of a Trade Mark associated with such a widely known and popular film series would be easy to demonstrate. However, throughout the decision, reference is made to the inadequacy and insufficiency of the evidence put forward by the proprietor, with questions being raised as to the function of the “Carry On” Marks. For example, were they merely titular in nature? Or did they indeed indicate the origin of the goods and services in question? Further to this, the Hearing Officer was not satisfied with the proprietor’s evidence in displaying that their Mark indicated a single trade source. That is, on the end products, the Marks were used alongside a second mark, namely another Mark belonging to the proprietor, the ‘ITV Studios Logo’. This is despite the advertisements mentioning the licence arrangements (albeit in small print). The proprietor’s use of their Marks alongside other marks would not, in itself, have precluded the “Carry On” Marks from demonstrating valid use; however, by using their Mark alongside another Mark, the burden of proof in displaying valid use was increased. In this case, DVD sales of £6 million spanning 11 years, was not enough to show valid use of the “Carry On” Mark, whilst it was being used alongside the ITV Studios logo.

 

The difficulties encountered in this case appear to be more related to the proprietor’s poor accumulation and organisation of their evidence, rather than to the issue of multiple Marks appearing on the final product. It goes without saying that each case is decided on its own facts, but this decision does offer food for thought on the levels of use required, when a Mark is used alongside a second, or possibly multiple, Marks. This should serve as a wake-up call for rights holders, in-particular to those that own, and use, multiple Marks that are licensed to third parties or licensed within their own organisation. What can be taken away in this regard is that particular attention should be paid to the look of the packaging, for example: where on the packaging the Mark is located, and the size of the Mark in relation to any other Marks featured.

 

The decision of the Hearing Officer is now open to appeal, whether the proprietor will be able to sway the UKIPO during a second round of arguments remains to be seen. Regardless, the importance of documenting thorough, and concise, evidence of valid use throughout the lifecycle of the Trade Mark should not be underestimated.

 

Should you be interested in seeking advice on the use of your Trade Mark, please contact us, and our highly experienced team of Trade Mark Attorneys here at Albright IP, will be pleased to advise you further.

 

Eviction Day for China’s Trade Mark Squatting

by

China’s Trade Mark Squatters

 

Adjust your Yuletide calendars to 1st November because Christmas is coming early this year.

 

On the 23rd April 2019, China’s legislators passed significant amendments to their Trade Mark legislation to combat the scourge of bad-faith Applications, more commonly known as ‘Trade Mark squatting’.

 

Many brand owners will be familiar with the term, ‘Trade Mark Squatting’ and understand it to be the act of pre-emptively registering a Trade Mark in an available territory, before the ‘rightful’ owner secures registration. In the most extreme circumstances, Trade Mark squatting can undermine a brand to the extent that territorial expansion is impossible, and the only option is to migrate to an alternative brand, with all the costs and loss of reputation that would be associated with that.

 

Most infamously associated with this problem is, China. Unfortunately, it is common for brand owners entering the Chinese market to find their Trade Marks have already been filed or registered by an unrelated third party. Sometimes the illegitimate filing will be lodged within hours of the genuine owner publicising their impending launch, or at the stage when commercial discussions are being held with local distributors. As the official fees are low, squatters are not deterred from filing hundreds of Trade Mark applications, in the hope of receiving a ransom from at least some of the aggrieved brand owners.

 

Moreover, nor are they deterred by the deep pockets or celebrity of their victims. For example, the following are brand names that have been filed/registered by parties unrelated to the genuine owners: Bentley, Bosch, Hugo Boss, Macy’s, Michael Jordan and Viagra. To name but a few!

 

Whilst there are options available for brand owners to wrestle their Marks free from squatters, they are often onerous and costly. So much so, that it is sometimes easier to give in to the squatter’s demands, or rebrand entirely.

 

HOWEVER, all is not lost. As a welcome first step in combatting this unfair practice, and to restore confidence in their system, China intends to implement new legislation that will bring about the rejection of any new Trade Mark applications filed without a bona fide intention to use. Essentially, new applications can be refused during examination, if the Applicant does not demonstrate sufficient proof that they intend to exploit their Mark in commerce. The expected result is a decrease in the amount of Trade Marks being ‘stolen’ in China.

 

How this will work in practice remains to be seen. At present, it is unclear what body of evidence will be required to prove an intention to use, and whether this will be adequately evaluated. However, combined with other proposed amendments to the Chinese practice, victims of Trade Mark squatters will have further opportunities to oppose or invalidate these bad-faith Registrations. For example, if a malicious Trade Mark application is not stopped during the examination phase, there is still hope it can be terminated during Opposition or post-Registration. Moreover, coupled with new penalties against bad-faith registrations, and very hefty fines for those found to have relied upon a bad-faith registration in litigation; the system underlying Trade Mark registration in China could soon be a much friendlier environment for foreign Applicants.

 

What this Means for Your Brand

 

Whether these new legislative changes are effective or not, companies interested in expanding their brand portfolio to China should always endeavour to obtain a Trade Mark registration as soon as possible. It will remain a ‘first come, first served’ country, i.e., securing the earliest possible filing date will continue to matter.

 

Whilst we remain cautiously optimistic that the new practice will provide recourse against Trade Mark squatters, it has been reported that Chinese Trade Mark examiners have on average only 10 minutes of inspection time per Application, and in 2018 over 7 million Applications were filed in China. With such a small window to reject bad-faith Applications, registering your brand in China as soon as possible is, and will likely always be, the best practice for protecting your brand. Get there first, and deny others the opportunity of beating you to it!

 

Albright IP Brexit Update: May 2019

by

Brexit

 

At the time of writing, the UK Parliament is continuing to debate the terms upon which the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will leave the European Union. In light of this, the deadline for the draft withdrawal Agreement to be signed, has been extended to 31 October 2019. Beyond this, providing ‘a deal’ is signed, a transition period will run up until end 2020.

 

Regardless of whether a modified version of the Withdrawal Agreement is negotiated, it is unlikely that the current draft proposals/terms relating to IP rights will change.

 

Trade Marks & Designs

 

Here are some key points to consider in anticipation of the post-Brexit proposals: 

 

Filing

  • All granted EUTM/RCD Registrations will be cloned at the effective date of Brexit; with the original filing/priority dates being preserved.
  • Any EUTM/RCD Applications pending at the effective date of Brexit will not be cloned; these will retain the original filing date/priority date, provided they are re-filed at the UKIPO within nine months of the effective date of Brexit. Thereafter, they will undergo fresh examination.
  • To ensure you will have rights in the EU and the UK after Brexit, file any new Applications in the EU and the UK going forwards from this point.
  • When filing IRs designating the EU; a separate UK designation should be added.

 

Renewals

  • Any EU renewals falling due prior to Brexit will encompass the UK.
  • Any EU renewals falling due after Brexit will not avoid payment of the renewal fee for a UK clone; this will require a separate renewal.

 

Use

  • For the future, use in the UK will not validate an EU Registration and vice versa. This will become relevant five years after grant, if vulnerability to cancellation for non-use is to be avoided.

 

Pending Proceedings

  • Closure of pending proceedings prior to the effective date of Brexit is to be recommended. As such, Cooling Off periods in pending EUIPO Oppositions should be brought to an end, and ongoing proceedings expediated.
  • Any ongoing EU Opposition and Invalidation proceedings based solely on a UK right, may be thrown out following Brexit.

 

Licenses and Security Interests

  • Licences or security interests recorded against an EUTM/RCD should also be recorded against its clone when this is created.

 

Contracts and Agreements

  • The terms of any pre-Brexit agreements should be reviewed, to ensure compliance following Brexit – opting-out or surrendering a clone might be necessary, as the existence of a UK Registration might be contravening earlier agreements.
  • Any clauses related to jurisdiction, governing law, and territory in existing contracts should be reviewed and amended to include the UK, as well as the EU, where appropriate.
  • Distribution agreements should also be reviewed in anticipation of changes to the exhaustion regime.

 

Patents

 

There will be no fundamental changes insofar as patents are concerned. Since the European Patent Office is not an EU Institution, and since the European Patent Convention is unrelated to EU law, practice will continue as usual.

 

Summary

 

As Brexit approaches, IP owners should be taking pro-active steps to ensure that their rights are well-managed and adequately protected. Whilst Patent owners and Applicants remain largely unaffected by the unfolding Brexit scenario, owners and Applicants of Trade Marks and Registered Designs should actively safeguard their interests, by paying attention to the action points outlined above.

 

Whatever happens in the lead-up to and indeed after Brexit, Albright IP will continue to offer expert advice to our clients, and we will be moving forward and adapting our practice, to ensure that the most appropriate, most comprehensive and cost-efficient IP protection is put in place in the UK and the European Union.

Cadbury’s Purple Trade Marks

by

Cadbury Trade Marks

Cadbury has faced yet another blow in their long-term battle in winning Trade Mark rights to their signature purple colour, used on its chocolate bars since the 1900s.

 

Last week (12 April 2019), the UK Intellectual Property Office delivered a mixed judgement following the Oppositions brought by Nestlé against three of Cadbury’s Trade Marks. The three Trade Marks in question were all for the colour purple, in shade Pantone 2685C, and the Marks all designated goods such as chocolate and drinking chocolate in Class 30.

 

The Marks in issue were the following:

  • UKTM No. 3019361 – Rejected
  • UKTM No. 3025822 – Rejected
  • UKTM No. 3019362 – Accepted

 

Pantone 2685C, as filed in the three Applications.

 

 1.) UKTM No. 3019361

 

This Application was accompanied with the following description:

 

“the colour purple (Pantone 2685C), as shown on the form of the application, applied to the packaging of the goods”

 

In its judgement, the IPO agreed with Nestlé’s arguments that the above description created substantial ambiguity, stating that it was potentially wide enough to cover the colour purple applied to packaging, ‘where other colours could also be present’, and that such colours had not been described or at all displayed in the Application. For this reason, the Mark was rejected.

 

2.) UKTM No. 3025822

 

This Application had the following description:

 

the colour purple (Pantone 2685C), shown on the form of application

 

The IPO considered this representation of this Mark to be arguably even more imprecise, as Cadbury did not explain how the colour sign was to be used at all. Whether the Mark was to be used on packaging, advertisement materials, or the products themselves, was undefined and indeterminate. The ambiguity was also said to have the ‘potential for the mark to cover at least two different signs’, i.e. purple chocolate, as well as purple packaging for the chocolate products. This Mark was therefore also rejected.

 

3.) UKTM No. 3019362

 

This Application was filed with the following description:

 

The colour purple (Pantone 2685C), as shown on the form of the application, applied to the whole visible surface of the packaging of the goods

 

This description was thought to be comparatively more precise, and sufficient in defining the scope of Application. Nestlé had argued that the purple colour would appear darker, depending on the medium of display, and also, that the description was ambiguous because the Mark would look different, depending on the shape of the packaging of the goods. This was rejected by the IPO. Instead, the IPO confirmed that the use of an internationally recognised colour code, which is both precise and durable, is wholly sufficient in satisfying the Trade Mark criteria of being ‘clear and precise’, by identifying a specific colour. The description filed was also held to be equally ‘clear and precise’.

 

Summary

 

The UKIPO decision adds to the recent defeat of Cadbury in the Court of Appeals in December last year, where the court dismissed Cadbury’s efforts to alter its purple Trade Mark.

 

In that case, Cadbury was seeking to amend the Registration of one of its earliest Trade Marks for their signature colour by shortening/narrowing its description. The amendment was pursued as a response to the outcome of another Opposition action, again, brought against them by their competitor, Nestlé. In that particular Opposition, the court rejected one of the purple Trade Marks owned by Cadbury, on grounds that the description filed was insufficiently precise.

 

Combined, the decision of December and the more recent decision last week has further opened opportunities for rivals to start using the signature colour for their own chocolates, or for knock-off brands to pass off their products as Cadbury’s. Either way, the colour protection wars have now clearly become a reality in the context of Trade Marks, not least applicable in the chocolate manufacturing industry. The fashion industry, for example, has recently seen a battle between Yves Saint Laurent and Christian Louboutin over Louboutin’s Trade Mark red sole, and we have also seen a battle across sectors, for the colour orange, between mobile network operator Orange, and airline company easyJet.

 

Although Cadbury still has existing valid Trade Marks in its signature colour, the message to take away from the recent decisions is clear – insofar as colour Marks are concerned, Applicant’s should always seek to file narrow descriptions, with a precise and defined scope, and irrespective of whether an Application relates to a single colour, or a colour combination.  Broadly speaking, where colour Marks are concerned, it seems wise to steer clear of any language which might leave room for flexibility, interpretation and/or ambiguity, and instead, opt for detailed language, which serves to systematically describe the exact distribution of colour/s, in relation to the medium where it is intended to be used.

Camborne Trevithick Day – 27th April 2019

by

We are pleased to be supporting Camborne Trevithick Day on 27th April 2019.  This annual celebration commemorates Camborne’s most famous son, prolific inventor Richard Trevithick.  The first commercially useful steam engine was developed in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen, and improved by James Watt and others throughout the 18th century.  By the time Richard Trevithick began his professional career steam was already powering the industrial revolution – but Trevithick made critical improvements to efficiency and demonstrated the first working steam locomotive.  This laid the groundwork for George Stephenson’s famous locomotives and the development of the railway in the UK and around the world.

Full details of the event, including how to get there and where to park, may be found at the organiser’s website http://trevithickday.org.uk/.  Perhaps you will be inspired – as Cornwall’s newest patent attorney firm, we certainly hope that Richard Trevithick is not the last great inventor from Cambourne!

In the meantime, we thought it would be interesting to look at the legal side of Trevithick’s career.

Trevithick seems to have spent rather a lot of time trying to navigate patent law.  Initially, it was someone else’s patents – those of James Watt – which proved to be a thorn in Trevithick’s side.  As long ago as 1624, the law had set a maximum term for patents, but Watt managed to get an Act of Parliament to extend his protection for “A method of lessening the consumption of steam in steam engines” until 1800.  The nub of Watt’s patent was the separate condenser, something which led to improved fuel economy over the old Newcomen engine.

Towards the end of its extended term, it appears that Watt’s patent was being widely ignored in Cornwall, with various mining engineers adding separate condensers to old Newcomen engines.  Watt sued and, in theory at least, eventually won.

The expiry of the Watt patent in 1800, coinciding with Trevithick’s own pioneering use of high-pressure steam, represented an opportunity, and his experience with Watt had no doubt left an impression. There is a story – probably completely unverifiable – that on being served with an injunction Trevithick held Watt’s lawyer upside-down over a mineshaft.  Trevithick evidently did not gracefully accept defeat but had surely learned the power of the patent.  What’s more, the litigation over Watt’s patent lead to the important legal principle that a valid patent could be granted for an improvement to a known machine. Trevithick could turn this to his advantage.

After refining his high-pressure engine, Trevithick naturally sought to obtain his own patent.  In January 1802, with his cousin and business partner Andrew Vivian, Trevithick went to London and asked around for someone who knew how to get one.  This does not seem to have been an easy job and required personal attendance at multiple offices.  Trevithick was a busy man, visiting Merthyr Tydfil and Coalbrookdale in the same year, so it was Vivian who took his place in London and in March 1802 wrote to report that he “must call at the Patent Office for the great knob of wax”.  In those days there was no actual examination of a patent application to check that it was for a new invention, but the Patent Office made up for this in impressive bureaucracy.  Nowadays you get the photocopied signature of a middling civil servant in place of that great knob of wax.

Trevithick also took Watt’s lead when it came to charging for the use of his now patented invention.  Like Watt, Trevithick agreed with mine owners that he would be paid a percentage of the money saved on coal by the use of his modern and efficient high-pressure engines.  Unfortunately, after returning from his tour of the Americas, Trevithick found that his customers had simply stopped paying, variously claiming that they thought the patent had expired, or that it did not cover some variation in the boiler design. Trevithick managed to negotiate with a few, but – unlike Watt this time – did not pursue the matter in Court.

Trevithick nevertheless filed for patents throughout his career, ending up with fourteen to his name.  His first patent, of 1802, was numbered GB2599, in a sequence that starts with GB1 of 1617.  By the time Trevithick had obtained his last patent in the year before his death, the number was at GB6308.  More patents had been filed in Trevithick’s career than in the 200 years previous.  The age of technology had certainly arrived.

Illustration from Trevithick’s 1802 patent specification

Victory for ‘Peppa Pig’ – Peppa’s win on Trade Mark Invalidity Claim

by

 

The owners of a hugely popular British animated series, ‘Peppa Pig’, have successfully won their bid to invalidate a Mark, arguably evocative of their well-known ‘Peppa Pig’ character.

 

Peppa Pig first graced our TV screens back in May 2004, and has since become one of the most well-known, and most popular British children’s TV programmes of all time. The rise of ‘Peppa Pig’ has, quite naturally, created a multitude of extremely lucrative commercial opportunities for the owners, Entertainment One and Astley Baker, who are now appearing to be more actively enforcing and policing their Peppa Pig-related IP rights than ever before.

 

One of the most recent cases involving ‘Peppa Pig’ has been the invalidation claim brought against an EU Mark filed for by Xianhao Pan. The invalidity claim perhaps comes as no surprise when one views the Marks in issue side-by-side, as displayed below:

 

Xianhao Pan’s ‘TOBBIA’ Mark The ‘Peppa Pig’ Mark

 

Background

 

In 2013, Xianhao Pan was granted an EUTM for the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark in Class 25, for clothing, footwear and headgear. The Mark is in the colours, pink, red, yellow and blue, and is said to depict a ‘tapir head on a human body’, with the words ‘TOBBIA’ in bold and black text underneath.

 

This was argued to be confusingly similar to the Peppa Pig creators’ earlier black and white mark, registered for the same goods. The earlier Trade Mark depicted the famous cartoon character, Peppa, with the words ‘PEPPA PIG’ underneath, in black and bold text.

 

When the case was first heard by the EUIPO Cancellation Division, rather controversially, they ruled that the two Marks were not confusingly similar, upholding the validity of the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark. On appeal in 2017, a U-Turn decision was made, and the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark was invalidated on the finding that the Marks were visually, phonetically and conceptually similar.

 

The General Court’s Decision

 

Following a round of appeals before the Board of Appeals of the EUIPO, the General Court concluded earlier today, 21 March 2019, the invalidity of the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark. Despite noting the differences in terms of the colours of the Marks in issue, it ruled that these differences, considered overall, did not outweigh the similarities.

 

In the appeal to the General Court, the owner of the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark argued that the Board of Appeals had failed to state the reasons for going against the first decision by the Cancellation division, but the General Court was quick to confirm that it was sufficient for the Board of Appeals to only state the reasons on which its own decision is based, and that an obligation did not extend towards identifying the incorrect aspects of the Cancellation Division’s decision.

 

Undoubtedly in agreement with the preceding Board of Appeals’ decisions, it was confirmed that ‘the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole’, without engaging in lengthy analysis as to the various details, and therefore, it was right to find that the Marks were visually similar overall.

 

Most interestingly, the General Court also remarked approval of the Board of Appeals’ previous assessment, which found a certain correlation between the word ‘tobbia’ and ‘peppa’, in the sense that both words contain the reiteration of a strong consonant, namely, the ‘B’ in ‘tobbia’ and the ‘P’ in ‘peppa’.  Although not verbally similar therefore, it seems that there was a consensus that the structural correlation and extremely similar graphical elements in the Marks rendered an impression of similarity in the minds of the consumer, who might consequentially come to view the Marks, and also the respective goods, as being related in some way.

 

Despite assertions from the owner of the Mark that the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark depicted a tapir, rather than a pig, the court considered it unlikely that the public would at all associate the Mark with a tapir, consequently finding there to be conceptual identity in the Marks, in the sense that they both represented a pig.

 

Consequently, when considering the overall similarities from a visual, phonetic and conceptual perspective, the invalidity decision was upheld.

 

Conclusion

 

Whilst today’s decision may seem an overly generous stretch in favour of the creators of Peppa Pig, at least, when it comes to the court’s apparent approval of the ‘correlation’ between the ‘strong consonant’ elements of the Marks, the decision of the court does not appear all that surprising. A side-to-side comparison certainly highlights the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark’s eerie resemblance, highly reminiscent of the famous pig character. Given ‘Peppa Pig’s reputation, there is certainly a likelihood that consumers might come to perceive the Marks, and the respective goods, as being somehow associated and/or connected to the Peppa Pig franchise. Like it or not, what would have undoubtedly been interesting in the court’s decision would have been a more thorough discussion, or at least, a reference to the previous grounds raised by the owner of the ‘Peppa Pig’ Mark, specifically, the conflicts with the earlier copyright.

 

Albright IP Brexit update: May 2018

by

 

The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the European Union on the 29 March 2019. Whilst the precise terms of exit are yet to be agreed, in March 2018, the European Commission and the UK published the first draft of a Withdrawal Agreement. This is the most comprehensive document to date, although each of the proposals are open to further revision.

 

The Withdrawal Agreement touches on the post-Brexit administration and scope of EU intellectual property rights, including EU Trade Marks (EUTMs) and Registered Community Designs (RCDs).

 

The proposed Transition Period:

 

The Withdrawal Agreement provides that the transition period will end on 31 December 2020. It is envisaged that during the transition period i.e. from 29 March 2019 to 31 December 2020, the applicable European Union law will still be effective in the United Kingdom. Consequently, EUTM and RCD rights will continue to be valid and enforceable in the United Kingdom until at least 31 December 2020.

 

In addition, UK IP practitioners will retain their rights of representation before the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) until at least 31 December 2020.

 

Points of agreement:

 

In terms of existing EU intellectual property rights, both sides have voiced the intention to create equivalent “cloned” UK rights, with the same filing, and priority dates and with no examination required. The proviso is that the rights in question are granted or registered before the end of the prescribed transition period.

 

“The holder of any of the following intellectual property rights [EUTMs/RCDs/Plant Variety rights] which have been registered or granted before the end of the transition period shall, without any re-examination, become the holder of a comparable registered and enforceable intellectual property right in the United Kingdom, as provided for by the law of the United Kingdom.”

 

Points of uncertainty:



What currently remains unclear, is the administrative procedures that will be put in place to transform and/or extend EU IP rights by the end of the transition period.

 

For trade mark rights that are pending at the end of the transition period, the owners will be allowed nine months to request a transfer and re-examination to the UK IPO, in order to retain the original filing and/or priority dates. This is very likely to incur an additional fee, and an inevitable delay in protection being granted.

 

A separate issue also to be addressed is the entitlement to representation at the EUIPO for UK practitioners, in a manner that will give reassurance to UK based rights-holders that they can continue to trust in the professional relationships that have been established.

 

The draft agreement remains silent in respect of unregistered designs. At present, the UKUDR is not a comparable replacement for the European UCD.

 

Summary:



For IP rights holders, as the months towards Brexit and the end of transition pass, seeking to secure separate UK and EU trade mark and design protection from the outset, is recommended. Whilst there are some reassurances that granted rights will be ‘cloned’, there is currently no parallel comfort being offered for pending applications.

 

Whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, Albright IP will continue to offer expert advice to our clients, and we will be moving forward and adapting our practice, to ensure that the most comprehensive and cost-efficient IP protection is put in place in the UK and the European Union.

 

Do you remember the Marlboro Man? A World without Trade Marks

by

 

 

On the 20 May 2016, standardised plain cigarette packaging became compulsory in the United Kingdom. On the second anniversary of this legislation, Albright IP has been considering the effect it has had on the trade marks traditionally associated with tobacco sales.

 

Marlboro, a premium tobacco brand that has been the world’s bestselling cigarette brand since 1971

Historically, tobacco companies have made extensive usage of advertising and sponsorship to promote their trade marks on everything from Formula One racing cars to TV shows. Possibly, the best example is Marlboro, a premium tobacco brand that has been the world’s bestselling cigarette brand since 1971. It was catapulted to success by the ‘Marlboro Man’, and until relatively recently they invested heavily in sports sponsorship.

 

As a trade mark is used it accrues goodwill; this goodwill can be accrued either through advertisement, endorsement, or by repeat purchase. Currently, Marlboro is the world’s 25th most valuable brand, and remains highly recognisable.

 

However, gradually as time moves forward from the introduction of the new regulations in 2016, the restriction on the tobacco companies’ ability to advertise and visibly promote their brands, is impacting upon their ability to accrue goodwill, and to induce purchases, as their brand recognition and options to promote an alluring image, diminishes.

 

In trade mark terms, perhaps, the most obvious impact of the plain packaging legislation is that it effectively restricts tobacco companies to relying upon their registrations of word marks, rather than the logos that they were associated with historically. Undoubtedly removing the figurative trade marks from packaging, will have an adverse effect on the value of the brands and the trade marks themselves, in turn impacting upon the asset value on the company balance sheets.

 

legislation has had a knock-on effect of making tobacco products indistinguishable from one another

 

Undoubtedly, the plain packaging legislation had the intention of portraying all cigarettes as being dangerous to health, but this legislation has had a knock-on effect of making tobacco products indistinguishable from one another, and essentially undermining the core function of a trade mark, namely to designate trade origin, and define an expected quality.

 

In a nutshell, the plain packaging legislation will eventually transform cigarettes into a homogenous product, which in turn will lead to consumers opting to purchase cheaper, and perhaps lower quality brands. Whilst we cannot comment on whether the plain packaging legislation will have the desired effect of reducing the number of smokers in the United Kingdom, the heavy restrictions on the use of advertising and branding in this sector makes a useful case study on the importance of trade marks and brand recognition.

 

If you require advice on future-proofing your trade mark protection, the experienced trade mark team at Albright IP will be happy to assist.

Playing Chicken: NANDO’S v FERNANDO’S

by

If you are ‘gallinivorous’ (someone who eats chickens), it is fair to say you are having a rough time. In February, the national Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) shortage temporarily closed almost two-thirds of the United Kingdom’s KFC branches.

 

In the recent weeks, another ‘chicken story’ has made the headlines. NANDO’S, a popular high street Peri-Peri chicken restaurant originating in South Africa, has taken action against FERNANDO’S, an independent Peri-Peri chicken restaurant from Reading, Berkshire.

 

NANDO’S v FERNANDO’S

 

NANDO’S, which has over 392 Restaurants in the United Kingdom alone, has alleged that FERNANDO’S is infringing its UK and EU Registered Trade Mark rights.

 

The owner of FERNANDO’S in Reading, Asam Aziz, claims he had no intention of imitating NANDO’S Trade Mark, and has stated the idea for the name FERNANDO’S is from ITV’s dating show ‘Take Me Out’. The basis of the show is that a single man chooses a date, and the couple are sent to the fictional ‘Isle of Fernando’s. Interestingly, the word ‘Fernando’s’ is purported to be a play on the words, going “for a Nando’s”.

 

Further, Asam Aziz has stated that his use of the ‘Rooster of Barcelos’ is simply an indication that the Peri Peri chicken he is selling is in the Portuguese style. Peri Peri being a form of cuisine of Portuguese origin and especially prevalent in Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa.

 

With regards to the use of the ‘Rooster of Barcelos’ device, FERNANDO’S could potentially rely on the defence that their use of the ‘Rooster of Barcelo’s’ device is merely a descriptive indication of the goods and services provided, such as the geographical origin. However, to be able to rely on this defence, the would-be infringer must show that he has used the indications in accordance with honest practices.

 

At this early stage, we can only speculate how this dispute will play out. Large companies often experience a public relations nightmare if they adopt a heavy-handed approach against small independent businesses. Here at Albright IP, we endeavour to offer pragmatic commercial advice when dealing with Trade Mark infringement, and for a further commentary please refer to our recent article: https://zurl.co/EBD3y

 

Until there is further news, we will keep an eye on who will ‘rule the roost’ in the UK’s latest chicken story.

 

Zombie Trademarks: Night of the living (dead) Trade Marks – a story for Halloween

by

ZombieIt is that time of year again, when things go bump in the night, indeed as the night draws in and it grows darker. Things are getting a little spookier here at Albright IP headquarters.

Nothing is quite as spooky as nipping down into the depths of County House, on a late evening, guided only by my trusted candlestick searching for a renewal file or perhaps just some spare stationary (OK, we have electricity, but this is meant to be a ghost story).

When, I return to my desk, I can hear the wind rustle through the trees, the building creek and the hoot of a friendly owl. Undoubtedly, the creepy surroundings have got me thinking. You see theoretically, all trademarks are immortal or at least perpetually renewable, in that as long as a trademark is renewed every 10 years, it can last into perpetuity. Indeed, the oldest UK trademark ‘Registration No. 1’ for Bass Brewery, is now 141 years old. However, in practice, trademarks often have a limited lifespan, they are born and they die.

This thought conjures an image to my head of a vast trademark graveyard, a place where trademarks, when they have been abandoned and lived out their usefulness, come to rest. Perhaps, it is the fate of good Trade Mark Attorneys, to one day (although hopefully in the far future) keep watch over this afterlife for trademarks? Nevertheless, the disconcerting thing is, trademarks unlike people (I hope!) sometimes come back.

Grave‘Zombie trademarks’, as they may be referred to, are a growing phenomenon. Since, reviving an expired trademark represents a number of advantages over starting the registration process all over again.

The most human-like advantage of the ‘Zombie trademark’ is that they can elicit feelings of nostalgia and a deep emotional connection with the consumer. In many cases these trademarks are iconic, and accordingly the brand image that they create, may have some residual reputation. This reputation or residual goodwill, means that an abandoned trademark may have considerable marketing potential, giving the holder the opportunity to save time and money which would otherwise have to be spent in creating the reputation associated with a new Mark. The adoption of a ‘Zombie trademark’ can represent less of a commercial risk for the owner, than a re-brand.

The ‘reviver’ of defunct or dead trademarks may take many guises. Sometimes, they will be the original right holder; however, more often than not, start-ups with little or no relation to the defunct brand, will attempt to obtain the associated rights, especially the ‘Zombie trademark’. For either of these profiles, the process of reviving a dead trademark can be problematic, but not insurmountable. A possible issue is that whilst a trademark may be long dead, other associated Intellectual Property rights may still be very much alive. It is important to remember that there may be residual copyright, or a valid passing off right enduring within, and surrounding the brand. The situation is further exasperated by the fact that as time goes on, a veil of uncertainty can manifest around who retains or who acquires a valid interest in an otherwise deceased brand.

‘Zombie trademarks’ represent a significant commercial advantage to those wishing to exploit the ever-continuing vintage trend, which is currently captivating consumers worldwide. However, there exist several substantial risks in trying to capitalise on this grave yard of goodwill. It is strongly recommended that anyone considering reviving a lapsed trademark or a ‘dead brand’, seek out the services of an experienced Trade Mark attorney, in order that the appropriate checks and searches can be conducted. We wouldn’t want you getting bitten by a deceased trademark which isn’t as dead as you thought!

Here at Albright IP, we have a very experienced trademark team, who can help you avoid a nasty fright, when it comes to reviving the elusive ‘Zombie trademark’. Happy Halloween…

Quicklinks & Glossary