Albright IP Limited

Protecting your innovation

+44 (0)1242 691 801

Speak to a UK and European Patent and Trade Mark Attorney

Banksy: The Flower Thrower

by

Banksy: The Flower Thrower

 

“Does art matter?”. On 17 October 2019 , graffiti artist Banksy launched an online shop called Gross Domestic Product to sell his branded merchandise for two weeks, the launch being advertised by a pop-up shop in Croydon, UK. To have chance at purchasing an item, would-be Banksy merchandise owners had to register their interest and answer the above tie-breaker question. The sale of trademarked merchandise, an unprecedented move by Banksy, is better understood in the wider context of a dispute surrounding one of Banksy’s trade marks.

 

Banksy is the owner of several European trade marks, registered under the name of Pest Control Office Limited, a handling service acting on behalf of Banksy. The particular European trade mark at the centre of the dispute is European Trade Mark 012575155  which protects an image reminiscent of Banksy’s Rage, the Flower Thrower mural in Jerusalem, also known as Love Is In The Air, Flower Thrower or Flower Bomber. The Flower Thrower trade mark was filed in February 2014 and registered by August 2014.

 

In a statement posted on the pop-up store in Croydon, Banksy has explained the motivation behind the shop as follows:

 

“A greetings card company is contesting the trademark I hold to my art and attempting to take custody of my name so they can sell their fake Banksy merchandise legally”.

 

Full Colour Black, the greetings card producer in question, deny that they are trying to take custody of Banksy’s name, and have stated that the company previously approached Banksy’s representatives to pay them royalties, which Banksy refused

 

Subsequently, in March 2019, Full Colour Black filed an action for invalidity to cancel the Flower Thrower European trade mark. If the trade mark were successfully cancelled, Banksy would not be able to rely on his European trade mark to prevent use of the Flower thrower image commercially and Full Colour Black would be free to sell cards featuring the Flower Thrower without any risk of infringing the mark.

 

Of course, Banksy could rely on copyright to stop Full Colour Black or any other entities who are copying his art work. However, so far, Banksy has not enforced his copyright, the likely reasons for this being that to do so would require giving up his anonymity, and the requirement to file statements of use to enforce his copyright in the USA.

 

The essential function of a trade mark is to enable consumers to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. As the Flower Thrower image is reproduced widely on goods sold by different entities, Full Colour Black have argued that the image is not capable of being a trade mark. This is because it does not allow consumers to distinguish the goods originating from an undertaking under Banksy’s control and those originating from other companies. This is particularly true, as, prior to the launch of the shop in October 2019, no official Banksy merchandise existed. Furthermore, Full Colour Black argue that Banksy has registered the mark with no intention to genuinely use it, which amounts to bad faith, a further ground for invalidity.

 

It is unclear how selling trademarked merchandise is supposed to help Banksy’s case, as evidence of use has no effect in an invalidation action. The sale would be much more understandable if the action filed by Full Colour Black had been for revocation, as a trade mark can be revoked for non-use.

 

According to European trade mark law, a trade mark can be revoked, upon application to the European Union Intellectual Property Office,

 

“a) if, within a continuous period of five years, the trade mark has not been put to genuine use in the Union in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use; […]”

 

(Article 58 of the EU Regulation No 2017/1001 of 14 June 2017)

 

In other words, as Banksy had not sold any goods to which the Flower Thrower trade mark was applied, and for which the trade mark was registered between August 2014 and August 2019, and there were no reasons preventing him from doing so, his Flower Thrower European trade mark became subject to revocation in August 2019 such that Full Colour Black could have applied for revocation from then on.

 

However, the law does also state that:

 

“no person may claim that the proprietor’s rights in an EU trade mark should be revoked where, during the interval between expiry of the five-year period and filing of the application or counterclaim, genuine use of the trade mark has been started or resumed; the commencement or resumption of use within a period of three months preceding the filing of the application or counterclaim which began at the earliest on expiry of the continuous period of five years of non-use shall, however, be disregarded where preparations for the commencement or resumption occur only after the proprietor becomes aware that the application or counterclaim may be filed;[…]”.

 

In short, the shop launch in October 2019 may have been an attempt by Banksy to pre-emptively invalidate any revocation action filed by Full Colour Black.

 

Such a revocation action would nevertheless remain admissible if Banksy only launched the shop after becoming aware of the possibility of a revocation action being filed against his trade mark and if such an action were filed within three months. Whether the sale of a few items for a limited period of time constituted genuine use of the mark is also an important question.

 

The current status on the European Union Intellectual Property Office register of Flower Thrower European trade mark 012575155 is “registration cancellation pending”, as the court determines the matter.

 

In a parallel move, Banksy’s legal team appear to have filed another representation of the Flower Thrower as a new European trade mark application in August 2019, European trade mark application 018118853. This new trade mark application is currently undergoing examination. If registered in due course, the sale of branded merchandise in October 2019 may well have been a move to demonstrate use of the image submitted in the newly-filed European trade mark application, rather than in response to the invalidation action. Of course, if the first Flower Thrower trade mark is invalidated (and therefore was never a valid registered trade mark), this may not bode well for the registration of the second Flower Thrower trade mark application, or indeed the registration of many other of Banksy’s image trade marks.

 

It will be interesting to see how this case develops further.

 

An important, practical conclusion for trade mark owners to draw from this case is to not wait five years before putting your trade mark to use. Otherwise, your trademark will become open to being revoked for non-use.

 

If you have not been using your mark in the last five years or more, the most advisable course of action in many cases would be to resume or start as soon as possible.

 

If in doubt, please do not hesitate to contact Albright IP for advice about your trade mark.

 

Bentley v Bentley – The Peril of New Markets

by

 

On 1 November 2019, Judge Richard Hacon in the High Court finally settled a 20-year long dispute between one of the world’s most prestigious and recognizable car brands, and a small Manchester based UK clothing company.

 

The background of this case is as follows. Since circa 1987, the Defendant, Bentley Motors Limited (“Bentley Motors”), has been extending use of their famous ‘B-in-Wings’ Trade Mark to clothing and clothing accessories. The Claimant, Bentley 1962 Ltd (“Bentley Clothing”), a UK based manufacturer and retailer of clothing, began selling clothing under the BENTLEY Trade Mark in 1962. The two sellers coexisted without apparent contact until 1998, when Bentley Clothing approached Bentley Motors to offer a licence for the use of their Trade Mark. The terms of the licence were not agreed, and talks broke down.

 

The situation escalated in the early 2000’s when Bentley Motors began using their ‘B-in-Wings’ Trade Mark in conjunction with the word ‘Bentley’ (“the Combination Mark”) on clothing and clothing accessories.  Further contact was made between the parties but to no satisfactory conclusion. Over the course of the next few years, Bentley Motors increased their use of the Combination Mark on clothing, despite being on notice of Bentley Clothing’s rights in, and use of, their BENTLEY Trade Mark in the same marketplace. Between 2005 and 2017 the two parties faced off numerous times before the EU and UK Intellectual Property Offices. Despite the length and cost of the proceedings, Bentley Clothing could not reach an agreement with their heavyweight opponent, and as a consequence, Bentley Clothing were left with no other option but to issue High Court proceedings against Bentley Motors for Trade Mark infringement. The result being a success for Bentley Clothing in its allegation of infringement (with damages and costs to be established at a later date).

 

This case highlights the potential dangers of brand extension from one marketplace; where the proprietor’s Trade Mark is incredibly distinctive and well-known, into a new marketplace, where the average consumer may not recognize that the relevant goods are associated with that particular proprietor. The effect being potential confusion in the market, as shown in this present case. Bentley Motors could be forgiven for thinking that their brand was too powerful to ever be challenged, even in a commercially distant market from the one that they are currently associated with. The long and slow encroachment by Bentley Motors into the clothing sector, despite being on notice of the existence of Bentley Clothing’s prior rights, seems to demonstrate a reckless arrogance. This loss for Bentley Motors shows that even large, reputable Trade Mark proprietors must approach brand extension with caution. Stepping out of an established market sector into a new area comes with risks.

 

The risks associated with brand extension can be mitigated with careful and considered research into the landscape of the relevant new market (Trade Mark registries and simple online searches are a good place to start), and being open to a meaningful discussion with competitors at a business to business level when a potential for conflict is spotted, is paramount in avoiding lengthy battles. In this case, if the discussions between the parties had not been allowed to break down, and if Bentley Motors had taken seriously the protection afforded by Bentley Clothing’s Trade Marks, it seems very likely that this dispute could have been settled long before it reached the High Court.

 

The High Court’s Decision can be appealed, and it will be interesting the see if Bentley Motors will continue the fight. Whether it’s sports or Intellectual Property, the press and the public love a good underdog story, and this one appears to be no different.

 

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

 

Can I register this shape as a Trade Mark?

by

Trade Mark Registration grants the owner a monopoly right over their Mark for an unlimited amount of time, so long as registration is renewed at each (10 year) anniversary.

 

When it comes to the registration of a 3D shape, arguably, the criteria for registrability is much more stringent, to avoid the same monopoly right being granted for a right that should more correctly be protected by a Design registration, with a limited life.

 

Aside from the usual requirements for registrability of a Trade Mark, a number of key hurdles are in place to limit the registrability of 3D shape Marks; these are listed below:

 

A 3D shape cannot be registered as a Trade Mark, if the shape:

 

  1. Arises from the inherent nature of the object/goods;
  2. Provides a technical function;
  3. Adds substantial value to the product.

 

Providing these objections can be overcome, a 3D shape can be an extremely valuable asset for an individual or company.

 

Case Study – The recent Jaguar Land Rover Case

 

Register a shape

 

Recently, the UKIPO rejected Jaguar Land Rover’s Trade Mark Applications for six 3D shapes, depicting their cars (pictured below), in a range of Classes of goods.

 

The grounds of the Oppositions were explored in detail in the UKIPO decision, which can be viewed here.

 

For the purposes of this article, we have focused upon two of the grounds pleaded:

  • the lack of inherent distinctiveness and
  • that the shape conferred substantial value to the goods

 

 (1) Lack of inherent distinctiveness

 

According to case law, for a shape Mark to be registrable, the shape must depart significantly from the norm or customs of the sector of products of that kind. This assessment is made through the eyes of average consumers, whose level of attention will vary, according to the nature of the goods in question.

 

The UKIPO identified that the shapes in question had some unusual aspects, namely “‘arrow shot’ rear windows and alpine side windows”. However, the configuration of the shape, as a whole, was important. Even with some unusual elements, the shape, as a whole, did not necessary depart from the norms or customs of the sector, and consequently, the Marks were found to be devoid of distinctive character in relation to passenger cars.

 

(2) Substantial value

Jaguar Land Rover pleaded that the boxy ‘slab-sided’ shapes were counter-functional, not necessary to achieve a technical result, and also, not features that consumers would be  looking for in competitors’ products.

 

The UKIPO expressed their uncertainty when deliberating whether the boxy ‘slab-sided’ shapes provided the ‘aesthetic appeal’, and it was merely noted that this was a ‘difficult and developing area of the law’, and the ground was ultimately left undecided.

 

Key Points from the UKIPO decision

 

  • When it comes to 3D Trade Mark Applications, Applicants will fare better the greater the degree that a shape constitutes a ‘significant departure from the norms or customs of the sector’. In this regard, mere elements and/or aspects of uniqueness or originality might not suffice, since it is the overall shape of the Mark which will be considered pertinent.

 

  • Unfortunately, the concept of substantial value still remains somewhat obscure. It is unclear whether this assessment should take into account or ignore the fact that consumers will recognise the shape. This raises doubt as to whether established brands, who have spent significant time and investment in creating brand recognition, will be jeopardising their ability to seek Trade Mark protection for a recognised product, if its appeal is only due to its ‘iconic’ shape/status in the mind of consumers. Hopefully, it will not take long for the ground of substantial value to be brought to the courts’ attention again, and perhaps the next time round, this will be properly addressed.

 

Summary

 

Overall, the UKIPO decision was not surprising. Given the potentially perpetual power of a Trade Mark registration, it remains in the interest of public policy to refuse registration of a 3D shape, where this would effectively grant a person or company, an endless monopoly over a shape that should be or become available for others to use in commerce.

 

If you would like further information or advice on registering 3D Trade Marks, or for any other Trade Mark advice, please contact the highly experienced team of Trade Mark Attorneys at Albright IP, who will be pleased to advise you further.

 

Get Out On The Highway – What exactly is the PPH programme, and is it worthwhile?

by

PACE vs. PPH

 

The European Patent Office (EPO) has announced as of July 2019 that the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot programme with IP Australia is to be extended to June 2022.

 

In total, this means that the EPO has PPH programmes in effect with fifteen other patent offices. The relevant jurisdictions are: United States of America; China; Japan; Korea; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Colombia; Israel; Malaysia; Mexico; the Philippines; Russia; Singapore; and Eurasia.

 

What exactly is the PPH programme, and is it worthwhile?

 

Earlier Work Products

 

The PPH programme allows a later office to rely on ‘available work products’ from one of the partner offices, which indicates that the claims of the application are allowable.

 

This allows the EPO to fast-track the grant process of the European patent application, based on the earlier work product.

 

Requirements

 

There are specific requirements for participation in the PPH programme.

 

  1. The priority date or filing date of the earlier application must match that of European application to undergo PPH acceleration.

 

  1. The earlier application must have at least one claim therein indicated as allowable.

 

  1. The claims of the European application must be made consistent with the allowable claim(s) of the earlier application. A claims correspondence table should be provided as part of the request for PPH at the EPO.

 

  1. PPH must be requested before the EPO begins examination of the European application.

 

Effectively, the PPH programme allows the prosecution of a pending European application to catch up with that of an application in another jurisdiction, provided that the EPO has not already started examination on its merits.

 

Should I Use PPH Acceleration?

 

The EPO acknowledges that a valid PPH request will put the application into a fast-track stream, on a par with a standard request for acceleration under the PACE programme.

 

This is interesting, since there is a significantly lower administrative burden on the applicant for filing a PACE request than there is for filing a PPH request, with no apparent change to the potential timeframe to grant.

 

What is also worth noting is that the EPO Examiner is still required to assess the merits of the compliance of the European application with the requirements of the European Patent Convention. PPH acceleration does not guarantee grant – it is not a rubber-stamping exercise. The EPO has different requirements for grant when compared with, for example, the USPTO or KIPO. The EPO requirements with regards to added-matter are commonly regarded as being stricter than in some other jurisdictions

 

PACE vs. PPH

 

Therefore, there may be different factors to consider when deciding whether to request PACE acceleration or PPH acceleration.

 

  • I want to bring my European application into alignment with an already-granted patent in another jurisdiction.

 

  • In this scenario, it would seem prudent to allow the EPO to access the prior work product of the earlier office, in order to streamline grant. Provided there is no obvious reason that the application contravenes the EPC, then PPH acceleration would seem appropriate.

 

  • I have a patent in another jurisdiction, and want to align some, but not all, of the features of the European application with the granted patent.

 

  • In this situation, we would not want to just accept the allowed claims from the earlier office. As such, PACE acceleration would seem more applicable.

 

  • I have a granted patent in another jurisdiction, but I have already responded to one examination report in Europe.

 

  • A PPH request would be invalid here. PACE acceleration of the examination process could still, however, accelerate the route to grant. The timeframe between examination reports can be substantial under European procedure.

 

  • I have a granted patent in another jurisdiction, but I am not sure whether the claims would be valid in Europe.

 

  • The best thing to do here would be to assess the claims for compliance with the EPC first, potentially aligning the ‘spirit’ of the claims with those as granted overseas, and then just requesting PACE acceleration. This may shorten the examination procedure, given that any deficiencies in the claim set may be addressed first. This may not be possible in a PPH request.

 

Overall, there are scenarios in which a PPH request may be a useful tool to quickly obtain grant of a European patent. However, the more straightforward PACE scheme provides the same benefits of acceleration, without many of the restrictions associated with a PPH request.

 

The important thing is to remember that the application must still meet the requirements of the EPC for a valid patent to be issued, in particular, with regards to inventiveness and added subject-matter.

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!

 

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:

 

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”“the colour purple (Pantone 2685C), as shown on the form of the application, applied to the packaging of the goods”” link=”” color=”#550f9d” class=”” size=””][/perfectpullquote]

 

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:

 

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”the colour purple (Pantone 2685C), shown on the form of application” link=”” color=”#550f9d” class=”” size=””][/perfectpullquote]

 

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:

 

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”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” link=”” color=”#550f9d” class=”” size=””][/perfectpullquote]

 

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.

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.

 

Mitigating the Effects of Prior Unpublished Patent Applications

by

 

Prior art searching is one of the most difficult things to get right in the IP sector, since any search is open-ended. How do you know whether there is a knockout document which discloses something identical to your invention that has just not been found, or whether it just does not exist?

 

This issue is compounded for patents by the publication cycle. Almost all patent applications are secret for the first eighteen months of their lives, and therefore have the potential to act against later-filed applications.

 

The prospective patentee is therefore presented with an unpleasant uncertainty – even the most thorough search cannot guarantee validity if unknown non-public prior art is available. Given that preparing and filing a patent application can involve a significant outlay of initial resources for start-ups, this can be very off-putting.

 

The British Process

 

It is worth, at this stage, outlining just what happens to a British patent application once filed.

 

From the date on which the application is filed, the claimed invention is ‘patent pending’. However, only a few morsels of information are visible on the UK Intellectual Property Office Register.

 

Provided the interim steps are taken, in particular, submitting formalised drawings suitable for publication, then the application will publish in full eighteen months from the date of filing or priority, which allows third parties to inspect the content of the application.

 

Critically, though, the first person (or their successor) to apply for a patent to an invention is the only person to whom the patent can be granted. This is known as the ‘first-to-file’ system, rather than ‘first-to-invent’.

 

Double Patenting

 

This secrecy creates an inherent problem. A patent is a monopoly right, but since the applications are secret when filed, it is feasible that lots of people could independently arrive upon the same idea, and want to patent it before any of the pending applications become public.

 

To offset this issue, prior-filed or prior-priority but unpublished patent applications are deemed relevant to the patentability of later-filed applications, for the purposes of novelty (i.e. uniqueness) only, provided that the application was filed in the same jurisdiction. Such a document cannot be cited against the inventiveness of a later application.

 

This provision in the law is specifically designed to prevent ‘double patenting’, that is, two patents being granted to the same invention.

 

This provides some comfort to prospective patentees. An unpublished document can only be used to attack the validity of any later-filed patent application in very specific circumstances. It would be unjust for the unpublished document to be deemed relevant to inventiveness (i.e. obviousness), when the skilled person could not rely on that information at the time of applying for their own patent.

 

Hunting for information

 

Whilst full patent applications are not available until the date of publication, there is some information available regarding patent applications which have been filed.

 

Every Wednesday, the UK Patents Journal is published, which has a list of patent applications which have been filed recently. The visible information includes the date of filing, the name of the applicant, the title of the invention, and the application number.

 

Whilst this is a very minimal amount of information, it does allow some level of monitoring to be undertaken to see whether competitors are filing patent applications themselves, and to what type of technology. It also allows you to keep track of the status of the application over time where applicable.

 

Strategies for minimising surprises

 

If you are considering filing a patent application, you may want to take the following steps to avoid unpleasant surprises downstream:

  1. Ensure that full patent searches are conducted prior to filing a patent application so that relevant prior art documents can be uncovered in advance. See our earlier articles on how best to go about conducting free patent searches.
  2. Keep an eye out for competitors’ product launches, and monitor the patent journal for applications which have been filed shortly in advance of the product launch. This may give you an idea of the sort of things that they are looking to protect, and you then may be able to foresee potential difficulties.
  3. File early! As soon as you are ready, and have the necessary technical information to warrant filing a patent application, you should do so. Delaying increases the risk of third parties filing their own applications before you.
  4. Ensure that you have thought through optional embodiments of your invention, or other clever features which may be important. The more technical information that is provided about these features from the outset, the greater the likelihood that you will have options for overcoming surprises during the examination procedure of the application.

 

As patent attorneys, we try and provide you with a flexible application which can withstand the rigours of examination, so that if close prior art documents are found, you have options for still getting some form of patent granted, so that initial risk does not become a lingering concern as you grow your business.

 

Trade Marks in a Post-Brexit World: The Implications of ‘No Deal’

by

 

As the countdown towards Brexit draws nearer, we appear to be edging closer than ever to a “no deal” situation, particularly given the recent turn of political events. From an IP perspective, this will no doubt represent a period of substantial uncertainty, and it is rather difficult to predict how well businesses will be able to navigate around these unchartered territories.

Those in the IP fields can, however, be somewhat reassured that the government, amongst all the crisis, have taken steps to put IP issues on their agenda when preparing for the eventuality of a post-Brexit world. In their notice, published 24th September 2018, the government offered some guidance on the approach to be taken in a “no deal” scenario, specifically with Trade Marks (and Designs) in mind. The technical notice is aimed at preparing the road in such a way as to minimise disruption, ensuring a ‘smooth and orderly exit’.

Since then, a draft instrument has been written up to address, at least in part, the implementation of Trade Marks following the UK’s departure from the EU – see The Trade Marks Exit Regulations 2018 (the “TM Exit Regulations”).

 

The TM Exit Regulations

If a deal is done with the EU, the TM Exit Regulations will come into force on “exit day”, which, for all Trade Mark intents and purposes, will be at the end of the transition period (currently 31 December 2020).

If there is no deal on exit day (currently 29 March 23.00 GMT), the effect of the Regulations is still likely to be applicable – so the only real conceivable practical difference between a deal and no deal departure, will be in timing.

The draft TM Exit Regulations includes a new Schedule 2A, which will be inserted into the UK Trade Marks Act 1994.

In short, the TM Exit Regulations provides for a cloning-based Trade Mark regime. Existing EUTMs will be cloned into UKTMs, provided that they have been registered prior to exit day (29 March 2019). These UKTMs will be given a new title, “comparable Trade Mark (EU)” (hereinafter “clones”).  Clones will share the filing (including priority and seniority) and registration dates of their parent EUTM, and there is to be no fee or opt-in procedure for this process to happen.

Clones should, according to the Regulation, appear automatically on the UK Trade Marks Register ‘as soon as reasonably practicable after exit day’. The government’s notice has confirmed that a notification will be made to EUTM owners that a UK clone has been created. Given the multiplicity of EUTMs currently existing on the UKIPO database, and the likely administrative challenge of implementing this wholly novel clone-based database, it is foreseeable that there may be a significant lapse of time before clones start showing up on the IPO Register, and before owners are actually notified of their new clones.

 

Opting-Out

EUTM owners may choose to opt-out of cloning at any time on or after exit day by serving notice on the UKIPO. However, opting out is not possible in the following circumstances:

  • If the clone has been used in the UK;
  • If the clone has been licensed or involved in certain transactions;
  • If proceedings relying upon the clone have commenced.

With this in mind, it is questionable whether European Trade Mark owners with business in the UK can choose to opt-out at all, given that, in most cases, EUTMs will be used extensively in the UK during the course of business on the day before exit day, and will likely continue post-Brexit, upon which a clone will have automatically been made. Therefore, unless a business completely ceases to operate its business activities following exit day, it is difficult to envisage how a situation might arise, whereby an owner would not be “using” a clone in the UK, allowing them to utilise the “opt-out” provision.

 

Renewals

Renewals will still follow existing UKTM renewal procedures following Brexit, but with important added protection anticipating the potential problem of owners forgetting about their clones. The Regulation provides that any owner with a clone renewable in the first 6 months post-Brexit will receive written notification from the UKIPO, notifying them of the upcoming expiration. From the date of receipt of this notice, Trade Mark owners will have 6 months to renew their clones.

Crucially, renewal fees will have to be paid to both the EUIPO and UKIPO for all Marks with a renewal deadline post 29 March 2019.

 

Proof of Use

There are some important technicalities to bear in mind when it comes to proving use of a Trade Mark post-Brexit. When proving the use of a clone within a proof of use period occurring wholly before exit day, the use of a parent EUTM in the EU, which will include use in the UK, will count towards establishing proof of use. However, where the proof of use period of a clone is split partially before and after exit day, the use of a parent EUTM can only count for the part of the period before exit day. Any evidence of use during the part of the period after exit day must be use occurring specifically within the UK.

 

Reputation

Similar provisions are mirrored with respect to proof of reputation. Where there is requirement to prove reputation at a point before exit day, the reputation of a parent EUTM in the EU prior to exit day will count, including any relevant reputation in the UK existing before exit day.

 

Co-existence Agreements, Licenses etc.

Post-Brexit, any co-existence agreements, licences and any other relevant transactions which involve EUTMs are deemed to cover their corresponding clones unless there is explicit evidence that such documents were not intended to have effect in the UK.

 

Pending Proceedings and Injunctions in the UK

Any actions pending before the UK courts concerning EUTMs will continue after exit day, but with the EUTM being swapped out for their corresponding clone. Similarly, any existing injunctions prohibiting acts in the UK on the basis of an EUTM will continue, with a clone being swapped in. From a practical perspective, this process of swapping in clones may potentially significantly diminish the scope of proceedings and injunctions between the parties, so it seems that pan-European level injunctions will no longer be available from the UK courts following Brexit, at least insofar as far a ‘no deal’ departure is concerned.

 

Pending EUTMs

One of the most important things to note in the new Regulations is that any EUTM Application pending as of exit day will not be cloned.

Instead, the Applicant will have 9 months from exit day to file a new UKTM Application, during which they will be entitled to claim the same filing date (or priority date) of the previously pending EUTM Application.

Given that most EUTMs generally taking at least 4 months from the date of filing to progress to Registration, 3 months of that being the mandatory Opposition period, the usual lag before the EUIPO marks an Application as “Registered” may well mean that EUTMs filed in 2019, and potentially some filed in December 2018, will not be automatically cloned, and will need to be re-filed within 9 months.

Importantly, Trade Mark Applicant’s with pending Applications should therefore note that they will not be notified of the need to refile, and will be required to pay all official fees to make a new filing.

 

Outstanding Issues Unaddressed by The TM Exit Regulations

Generally speaking, the TM Exit Regulations go some way in addressing the problems which may arise following the UK’s departure from the European Union. Nonetheless, despite a level of detail, some outstanding issues remain largely unaddressed. A few of these issues are summarised below:

  1. The UK government has confirmed the continued protection of International Trade Marks in the UK following a ‘no deal’ departure scenario. International Trade Marks designating the EU will be protected as new UK Registrations, rather than International Registrations designating the UK. It remains unclear whether this is to happen automatically, as with cloning, or, in the alternative, whether Trade Mark owners will have to take proactive steps in order to safeguard continued protection.
  2. Based on current rules on correspondence addresses, anyone applying for a UK trade Mark must supply an address for service in the European Economic Area (EEA). The Regulations does not adopt any form of “transitional” approach to representation, which would have ensured a level of certainty if the UK were to leave the EEA too. Considering that this may well become the reality following a ‘no deal’ departure, the lack of transitional measures addressing the loss of rights of representation on part of UK Trade Mark Practitioners might have some significant ramifications.

 

Conclusion

Overall, the TM Exit Regulations, address a large area of the upcoming issues which may arise in a post-Brexit, ‘no deal’ world. As we get nearer to Brexit day, things could, no doubt change significantly overnight. Judging by what the UK government has prepared thus far, the current ‘business as usual’ theme is entirely focused on a visible attempt to make everything as easy as possible for Trade Mark owners. Whilst most of what is being suggested appears sensible, some larger issues do remain unresolved at the expense Trade Mark practitioners.

With many of the important details still to be confirmed, and with Brexit still being “up in the air” in terms of securing a deal or “no deal”, we may find ourselves in a situation where solutions and/or any significant changes are only announced at the very last moment. With this in mind, Trade Mark owners and practitioners should be minded to closely follow and monitor the unfolding political and legal developments, as these will, no doubt, have a huge impact on the implementation of Trade Mark law and practice in the post-Brexit world.

Quicklinks & Glossary