New recipes

Cadbury and Nestlé Are in a Legal Battle Over the Shape of the Kit Kat Bar

Cadbury and Nestlé Are in a Legal Battle Over the Shape of the Kit Kat Bar

Previously, Nestlé blocked Cadbury from trademarking a specific shade of purple

Nestle is attempting to protect the distinct shape of the Kit Kat bar.

Cadbury, the U.K. confectionary owned by Mondelēz International, Inc., is fighting Nestlé in an attempt to block the Swiss multinational company from trademarking the shape of the Kit Kat bar, reports Bloomberg.

In the United States, the Kit Kat bar is produced by the Hershey Company.

The battle inside the European Union Court of Justice in Luxembourg this week follows a previous dispute over the color purple, which Cadbury attempted to trademark. That attempt was blocked by Nestlé.

On Thursday, Nestlé lawyer Simon Malynicz told judges, “This is not a serious case about monopolizing shapes at all,” asserting, rather, that it is about a chocolate that is “highly recognizable and much loved in the U.K.”

This latest lawsuit challenges Nestlé’s application to trademark the “four-fingered” shape of the Kit Kat bar, which sold approximately $61.4 million worth of bars in the U.K. between 2008 and 2010.

If the court does allow Nestlé to go through with the trademark, it “would open the floodgates to the registration of marks lacking the essential function of a trademark,” Thomas Mitcheson, a lawyer for Cadbury, told the EU judges.


Copycat Kit Kats on cards as European court of justice rejects trademark bid

Nestlé has suffered a setback in its attempt to trademark the shape of its Kit Kat chocolate bar in the UK after a long legal battle with its rival Cadbury.

A decision by the advocate general of the European court of justice – whose opinions are usually followed by the EU court – says Nestlé’s attempts to trademark the Kit Kat shape in the UK do not comply with EU law. As a result, Nestlé may now have to face competition from rivals making copycat Kit Kats - chocolate bars the same shape and size as the bars advertised for decades under the slogan “Have a break, have a Kit Kat”.

The Swiss company’s attempt to own the four-fingered shape of a Kit Kat has been opposed by Cadbury and the two confectioners have been involved in a lengthy tit-for-tat row. Cadbury, which is owned by US group Mondelēz, dug in against Nestlé’s attempt in 2010 to protect the shape of the Kit Kat, after Nestlé blocked Cadbury’s attempt to trademark the hue of purple used for its chocolate wrappers.

Nestlé, the world’s biggest food group, sold £40m of Kit Kats a year in the UK between 2008 and 2010. The first Kit Kat was sold in Britain by Rowntree & Co in 1935 and the shape has changed little since then. Nestlé acquired Rowntree in 1998.

Iain Connor, intellectual property lawyer at Pinsent Masons, said: “It seems that the old ‘elephant test’ isn’t enough for trademark lawyers. Despite the fact that consumers know a Kit Kat when they see one, the advocate general has said that the court needs to see evidence of a level of acquired distinctiveness way beyond ‘mere recognition’.”

He added: “The opinion is entirely consistent with the court’s previous refusal to grant trademark protection for Lego bricks and so comes as no surprise.”

Nestlé’s lawyer, Simon Malynicz, had told the EU judges: “This is not a serious case about monopolising shapes at all.” He said it was about a chocolate bar that is “highly recognisable and much loved in the UK”.

He added: “These cases have to be understood in the context of a long tradition in the UK of refusing registration to all shape trademarks, no matter how distinctive they have become.”

The UK Trade Marks Registry had turned down Nestlé’s application to protect the chocolate bar in the UK in 2013 following Cadbury’s opposition.

Cadbury was taken over three years ago by US giant Kraft Foods, which then spun off its global snacks business and called it Mondelēz, based in Illinois. Cadbury is now part of Mondelēz, which also produces Trident gum and Oreo biscuits.


Nestlé fails to trademark KitKat’s signature shape after 7-year battle

After a seven-year fight against candy-making rival Cadbury, Nestlé lost the latest legal battle to be able to trademark the four-fingered shape of its popular milk chocolate-covered wafer candy bar, KitKat, in the UK.

On May 17, the Court of Appeal ruled against the Swiss food company, stating that the design of the KitKat has “no inherent distinctiveness.”

After months of deliberation, the three appeals judges found that the three-dimensional shape of the candy is not a “badge of origin,” reports The Guardian.

While KitKat’s four-fingered shape might be best known in association with that specific candy, the appeals judges found that doesn’t mean consumers would rely on it alone to identify the product, according to The Guardian.

“These kinds of recognition and association do not amount to distinctiveness for trademark purposes,” a judge remarked, according to The Guardian.

The court’s ruling marks the latest step in the battle between Nestlé and Mondelēz, which owns Cadbury, Oreo and several other brands in the U.S., over the KitKat trademark. Nestlé first attempted to register its trademark in 2010, but the application to be the sole producer of a four-fingered chocolate bar was opposed by Cadbury, reports Chicago Tribune.

According to court proceedings, Nestlé spent between £3 million and £11 million (USD $3.9 to nearly $14.3 million) a year advertising and promoting KitKats between 1996 and 2007.

The ruling isn’t necessarily the end of the road for Nestlé. A spokesperson told The Guardian the Swiss company is considering next steps, potentially taking the case to the UK Supreme Court-- the country's highest.

Nestlé currently holds trademarks for the shape the KitKat bar in several other countries, including Germany, France, Australia, South Africa and Canada, helping protect it from imitation in those nations.

Following the ruling, a Mondelēz spokesperson stated the company does not believe the KitKat bar shape should be trademarked in the UK, The Guardian reports.

However, protected shape trademarks are not unprecedented. Toblerone, which is owned by Mondelēz, successfully trademarked the “zigzag prism” shape of its candy, according to The Guardian.


Nestlé Wins Trademark Lawsuit Over KitKat Bar's Shape

KitKat loyalists are in luck. Nestlé has won a trademark lawsuit against Cadbury in the UK's Community Trade Mark Office over their rights to the candy bar's shape. Now, other confectioners will not be able to sell products with a similar, four-bar structure anywhere in the European Union.

KitKat's shape was registered by Nestlé in 2006. Cadbury applied to invalidate the registration shortly thereafter, claiming that a trait as general as a product's shape could not be trademarked.

In addition to Cadbury's famous Creme Eggs, the company sells KitKat-like products, such as Crispello, a chocolate bar with a "creamy center, wrapped in a delicate crispy shell, covered with a delicious layer of Cadbury chocolate."

Cadbury initially won its appeal, but the decision has since been overturned in Nestlé's favor. The trademark regulators claim that the four-bar structure has been in use by Nestlé for so long that customers worldwide associate the shape with the brand.

Nestlé and Cadbury have a history of trademark feuds, the most recent of which involved Cadbury's purple packaging. When Cadbury won the right to the exclusive use of its own shade of purple (at least for candy), some questioned the wisdom of granting a trademark for an entire color.


On 20 January 2016, the Chancery Division of the High Court issued its judgment on the latest appeal concerning Nestlé’s attempt to register the 3D shape of its four-fingered bar. Sadly for Nestlé, in a double blow, Mr Justice Arnold dismissed their appeal against an earlier decision to refuse the registration of their shape mark and upheld Cadbury’s cross appeal also to refuse the mark protection for ‘cakes’ and ‘pastries’.

Since the filing of Nestlé’s trade mark application back in 2010, Cadbury has argued that the shape of the KitKat bar is not distinctive enough to be protected as a trade mark, hence Nestlé should not be granted a monopoly to manufacture confectionery goods to that shape. Nestlé has counter-argued that the shape is iconic and well known by consumers as indicating a KitKat bar.

The UK IPO held in 2013 that the mark consisted exclusively of a shape which results from the nature of the goods, and so fell foul of the shape objections, and also was devoid of distinctive character and had not acquired a distinctive character. It therefore refused to register the mark. This decision was appealed by both parties to the High Court, which prompted Arnold to refer three questions to the CJEU regarding the registrability of shapes and the requirements for recognising acquired distinctiveness for shapes. The CJEU ruled on 16 September 2014 in decision C215/14.

In his analysis of the CJEU’s answers, Arnold expressed regret that one of his precisely worded questions on acquired distinctiveness had been reformulated by the CJEU, such that the answer provided to that question was unclear. The question related to whether the consumer had to rely on the sign for the owner of the sign to be able to rely on that recognition to support acquired distinctiveness. The ambiguity over the answer to this question (the CJEU did not really seem to address it as intended) resulted in disagreement between the parties as to the correct interpretation, leaving Arnold to apply the answer as best as he could in order to reach his final conclusion.

Ultimately, Arnold supported the original UK IPO contention that the evidence filed by Nestlé had demonstrated that consumers associate the shape with Nestle’s product, but no more than that. In order for a claim of acquired distinctiveness to succeed, he held that it is necessary to show that consumers rely upon the shape of the goods alone in order to identify the origin of the goods, without relying on any brand names, logos, or packaging, to assist them in making this connection.

As consumers are so influenced by these other visual elements, it is notoriously difficult to establish that consumers rely exclusively upon the shape to determine trade origin and understand that shape to be distinctive of one trader alone. In this case, it was noted that KitKat bars had been sold in opaque wrappers, such that the shape of the four-fingered bar inside was not even visible to consumers at the time of purchase.

With Arnold sticking firmly to his guns, there is little doubt that Nestlé will wish to challenge his interpretation. A further appeal from Nestlé will be expected.

The big difficulty here is that Arnold’s key question relates to the concept of “reliance”. Is it enough to show that consumers recognise a product as being a specific product from a particular party based on the shape of the product (as Nestle’s surveys seemed to show in this case) or does one have to go further and show that consumers rely on the shape in some way and understand that the shape is functioning in a trade mark sense. The CJEU did not seem to engage with this question and instead focussed on the fact that the consumer has to understand origin as a result of use of the sign in question and that sign alone. A literal application of the CJEU decision would surely confirm that Nestle did do enough? The surveys did show that a large proportion of people being shown the sign recognised the sign’s origin, and they did so without the help of any other sign, so on the basis of the CJEU determination why not confirm registration on the basis of acquired distinctiveness?

The problem for Arnold is that the reason that he did not do this in the first place was the question of reliance, and it does not seem that this question has been answered. This commentator would imagine another reference will have to happen on this point (although not in this case!).

This is a very important case for anyone interested in trade mark protection for unusual marks such as shapes or colours. The concept of reliance, whilst intellectually understandable, creates huge issues from a practical point of view. How does one really show that a consumer not only recognises the sign but relies on it also? And without leading the consumer to a particular answer in the way that we are not allowed to do in surveys?

This commentator can only make sense of this position if the concept of reliance is really another way of expressing “trade mark use”. If you study the development of the case law on this point, the difficulty in the cases is in showing that the party has used the mark in a trade mark sense rather than used it any old how, but to such an extent that consumers recognise it anyway. Naturally it is usually easier to do that for a traditional word or logo as against a shape or colour but not impossible. This surely fits with the statutory scheme – acquired distinctiveness must be based on use of the sign, and is reasonable to interpret this “use” as being use in a trade mark sense. Ultimately Nestle are penalised here for the fact that they rarely use their sign in a way that suggests that they think of it as a trade mark which is intended to indicate origin. If they don’t use it this way why should they have the monopoly? Unfortunately that does not appear to be exactly what is being said, which, at least in this commentator’s view, leaves a very unsatisfactory position.

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Trademark Blog, please subscribe here.


Cadbury and Nestlé’s chocolate court battle: give us a break

Controversy abounds! McDonald’s has withdrawn its latest ad after it was attacked for exploiting child bereavement. I’ve seen the shocking ad and it’s disgraceful. A young boy, already sad because his dad has died, orders a Filet-o-Fish, which everyone knows is the quickest shortcut to overwhelming grief and remorse there is. To expose young children to this level of fish-based depression is irresponsible. McDonald’s should get back to selling kids chicken nuggets instead.

Meanwhile, the incredibly important row between Nestlé and Cadbury intensified this week after Nestlé lost yet another court battle in its attempt to trademark the shape of the Kit Kat, which is the best chocolate bar on the market, other than the Kit Kat Chunky, or peanut butter M&M’s (which are outrageous).

Why would anyone object to Nestlé trying to trademark the shape of a Kit Kat? It’s a good question, because really, what possible reason could anyone have? The answer, it emerges, is revenge.

Not since the days of Arthur Slugworth has corporate-confectionery-copycatting been quite this high on the news agenda. The story began a decade or so ago, when Nestlé successfully blocked Cadbury’s attempt to trademark the specific colour of purple it uses for Dairy Milk (it’s called Pantone 2685C, if you’re interested). In turn, Cadbury has now blocked Nestlé’s plan to trademark its four-fingered bar.

Here’s what a grown-up spokesman for Cadbury owner Mondelez said after today’s ruling was announced: “We are pleased with the court of appeal’s decision today and welcome their conclusion. As we have previously stated, we do not believe the shape of the Kit Kat bar should be protected as a trademark in the UK.”

Thank goodness they stepped in. But you’re quite right, it does echo the smug Nestlé spokesman in 2016 who announced how “pleased” Nestlé was that Cadbury had been denied the registration of Pantone 2685C, doesn’t it?

Perhaps both parties are completely unaware of how this sort of thing appears to anyone outside of their chocolatey towers. What may have started out as corporate mischief-making will be costing them a fortune in legal fees, which must bemuse and frustrate investors.

Both Nestlé and Cadbury should be focusing on their own recipes, margins, innovations and operations rather than trying to sabotage each other by arguing over colours and shapes like toddlers at nursery school. Does anyone actually care about this situation other than the egos in both boardrooms and the lawyers chalking up yet more billable hours?

The lawyers, of course, will be grimly advising their clients of the risk of their opponent gaining a competitive advantage of some sort should they allow these trademarks to go through, as if they aren’t talking about shapes or colours, but chocolate itself. Ah, lawyers.

If we do stoop down and take it seriously, does Cadbury really believe launching an identikit-Kit Kat would reverse its ailing performance? Does Nestlé actually plan to copy a Dairy Milk in the classic purple to boost its own fortunes? If they did, some people would buy them, some brand loyalists would actively reject them, the resulting sales would cancel each other out, and a social media fail somewhere along the line would be guaranteed.

It’s certainly one for Stefano Agostini, who will assume control of Nestlé UK on 1 July, to ponder. After today’s judgment, Nestlé is reportedly considering taking the case to the Supreme Court. Cadbury will no doubt be waiting for it. But given the struggles both Nestlé and Cadbury are enduring right now, maybe it’s time for both of them to take a break, get back to what they do best, and invent some new chocolate bars.


Nestlé KitKat shape trademark fails as Cadbury appeal allowed

Nestlé 'disappointed' and will appeal the decision. Photo: iStock - darios44

In a ruling yesterday, Justice Arnold said the KitKat shape alone – without branding – had failed to gain distinctiveness.

He accepted Cadbury’s argument that there were many other similar shaped products on the market.

“There is no evidence, however, that consumers thought that those products were KitKat products,”​ he said.

Nestlé plans appeal Cadbury 'pleased'​

The judge refused to register the four-finger KitKat as a 3D shape and accepted Cadbury’s appeal to remove Nestlé's shape mark for cakes and pastries.

A Nestlé spokesperson said: “We believe that the shape deserves to be protected as a trade mark in the UK and are disappointed that the court did not agree on this occasion.

“We are taking the necessary steps to appeal this judgment.”

A spokesperson for Mondelēz International-owned Cadbury said: “We are pleased by this ruling by the UK High Court which is in line with our contention that the shape of the KitKat bar is not distinctive enough to be protected as a trade mark.”

South African battle

Last year in South Africa, Nestlé blocked International Foodstuffs’ (IFFCO) Tiffany Break bar from sale in the country. In January 2015, the Supreme Court said the Break bar contravened Nestlé’s South Africa trademarks on the 2-finger and 4-finger wafer shape, but IFFCO has appealed the ruling to the Constitutional Court, the country’s top adjudicator.

Case history​

Nestlé applied to register the mark in 2010, but was later opposed by Cadbury UK, now a subsidiary of Mondelēz International.

In 2014, the Registrar of Trade Marks refused to grant a shape trademark for most areas applied for by Nestlé except for ‘cakes’ and ‘pastries’.

Nestlē appealed that decision to the UK high court, calling for the trademark to cover other categories.

Cadbury also appealed on grounds that the trademark for cakes and pastries too should be rejected.

When the case reached the UK high court, Justice Arnold referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on whether 3D shapes could be trademarked.

CJEU said in September last year it was possible to register a 3D shape trademark, but only when the shape alone has distinctiveness to the brand, in isolation of any branding.

In light of the CJEU ruling, Justice Arnold yesterday said the KiKat shape had not gained such distinctiveness.

Can only unbranded products win shape marks?​

James Sweeting, senior associate in the Media, Brands & Technology team at Lewis Silkin, said companies can register shapes but it would be tough to block competitors from selling similar shaped products as Nestlé has attempted.

“The legal test established by the CJEU last year makes it extremely difficult for companies to obtain monopolies over shapes. In order to do so, they would have to promote the product as a shape in its own right, stripping it of all other branding which may tell consumers where the product originates.

Copyright - Unless otherwise stated all contents of this web site are © 2021 - William Reed Business Media Ltd - All Rights Reserved - Full details for the use of materials on this site can be found in the Terms & Conditions


Nestlé Just Lost A 16-Year Legal Battle Over The Shape Of Kit Kats

These are the eight words at the heart of a 16-year legal battle between Nestlé and the courts of the UK and EU over the shape of a Kit Kat.

The makers of the hugely popular chocolate and wafer treat argue its design is &ldquoiconic&rdquo and deserves protection.

But not everyone agrees and today the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled a Europe-wide trademark for Kit Kats should be annulled.

The saga began in 2002 when Nestlé applied for the trademark on the Kit Kat shape - &ldquofour trapezoidal bars aligned on a rectangular base&rdquo.

After a four-year tussle it was granted, but the decision provoked protests from manufacturers of similar-looking snacks, most notably Cadbury-owned Mondelez, makers of Kvikk Lunsj, a Norwegian favourite that looks like - you guessed it - four trapezoidal bars aligned on a rectangular base.

Since 2007 the legal battle has been in and out of the courts, culminating in 2016 when Nestlé was told in order to keep its trademark it had to prove Kit Kats were recognisably distinct in every single country in the European Union.

The company attempted to prove just that, but no evidence could be provided for Belgium, Ireland, Greece, and Portugal.

This prompted Nestlé to appeal the burden of proof and today&rsquos decision by the ECJ denied it.

The ECJ found that the General Court was right to annul the European Union Intellectual Property Office&rsquos (EUIPO) 2006 decision that &ldquodistinctive character had been acquired&rdquo without &ldquoadjudicating on whether that mark had acquired such distinctive character in Belgium, Ireland, Greece and Portugal&rdquo.

It said: &ldquoOn the basis of those considerations, the Court dismisses the appeals of Nestle and EUIPO.&rdquo

Nestle has not sought such a status for its two-finger bar.

It follows a decision by appeal judges in the UK in favour of stripping Kit Kat of its UK-only trademark on the basis that the three-dimensional shape of a chocolate product had &ldquono inherent distinctiveness&rdquo.

The appeal court heard then that Nestle had spent between £3 million and £11 million a year advertising and promoting Kit Kats between 1996 and 2007.

More than 40 million were sold in Britain in 2010.

Mondelez International, previously known as Cadbury Schweppes, filed the original challenge to the EU trademark in 2007, a year after it had been granted.

Duelling between the two companies has also seen Nestle challenge Mondelez&rsquos British trademark for the shade of purple wrapper on its Cadbury&rsquos Daily Milk chocolate bars.

Toblerone, which is owned by Mondelez, has successfully trademarked its &lsquozigzag prism&rsquo shape.


Nestle Lost More Than A Decade Old Legal Battle Over Kit Kat Shape

Nestlé has been trying hard to trademark Kit-Kat bars’ signature four-fingered shape from last 16 years and now on Wednesday European Court of Justice has thrown out the latest appeal by the Swiss food company to establish rights to the treat’s design.


That could bring an end to the snack’s protected European status – and a saga that has proved expensive for both sides.
It also takes the pressure off identical treats like Norway’s Kvikk Lunsj – pronounced “quick lunch” and which has been around for 80 years – and opens the door to own-brand imitations at your local supermarket.

Kit Kat and Kvikk Lunsj

Kvikk Lunsj chocolate has a different flavour from the Kit Kat, similar to parent company Mondelez’s Milka brand. Some consider this even superior product than Kit Kat. The Norwegian bar has been made since 1937, two years after Kit Kat – originally called Rowntree’s chocolate crisp – hit the market in 1935.
For more than 60 years, the two crispy treats lived together in harmony – until Nestlé went on the offensive. In 2002, the global chocolate company applied for a trademark in Europe for Kit Kat. There was no issue with the bar itself, embossed with the Kit Kat logo.
But it also applied for the trademark for the shape of a Kit Kat – or “four trapezoidal bars aligned on a rectangular base” as a top EU legal adviser put it. After four years of back-and-forth, the EU trademark granted Nestlé the shape as a trademark.
The makers of Kvikk Lunsj, Mondelez, also owns brands including Cadbury, Milka, Oreo, and Toblerone and Cadbury took issue with Nestlé’s new trademark.
Mondelez also makes the Leo bar – another four-fingered chocolate treat.
In 2007, the court battle began in earnest, see-sawing from one side to the other during appeal after appeal.
Wednesday’s ruling threw out Nestlé’s appeal, telling the EU trademark office it has to “reconsider” its decision – essentially annulling Kit Kat’s claim.
The case was about whether the brand had become distinctive enough to deserve its trademark – that its shape alone was how people recognise the snack.
In 2016, a lower EU court decided that Nestlé had to prove a Kit Kat was recognisable in every EU country – and no evidence had been provided for Belgium, Ireland, Greece and Portugal. And none of the parties involved – Mondelez, Nestlé, or the European trademark office – were happy about that.

Nestlé and the EU’s trademark office appealed against the 2016 decision. If proof of distinctiveness had to be shown for every single member state, they argued, no company could ever reach that high standard. Mondelez, meanwhile, argued that it was wrong to conclude that Kit Kat had “distinctive character” anywhere – including countries like the UK, Germany and France. The European court threw out all those objections.
The result is that the EU’s top court has now declared that it’s not enough to prove that a product has become iconic in “a significant part” of the EU – it has to be proven across all the markets of the bloc, not just some.
Nestlé said that Wednesday’s judgement was “not the end of the case” and that it believed the EU trademark office will side with the company anyway.
“We think the evidence proves that the familiar shape of our iconic four-finger Kit Kat is distinctive enough to be registered as an EU trademark,” a company spokesman said.
John Coldham, partner at the UK law firm Gowling WLG, said that rather than cancelling the trademark the court decided it should never have been awarded at all on the basis of the evidence. That means the decision heads back to the EU trademark office.
“Assuming the EU Intellectual Property Office does not have evidence that the shape is distinctive across the EU, I would expect it to remove the mark from the register now,” Mr Coldham said.
“It is open to Nestlé to apply again, and to put stronger evidence in, so this may well not be the end of the road,” he added. “No-one is saying it is impossible to get a trade mark for the Kit Kat shape – just that there needs to be evidence that the shape is distinctive of Kit Kat in every part of the EU.”
So the Kit Kat is set to lose its EU trademark – for now. But there is still a fight to be fought.


The Chocolate Wars – Wrangle between Nestle & Cadbury on KitKat Shape TM

In this reigning retail world, even minor details of products that may bring major changes in the market, matter. In this current scenario every company wants to protect its identity through trade mark registrations. The whole story started in the year 2010 when Nestle applied to register trademark for its four-fingered chocolate – KitKat. Cadbury clashed with nestle in filing the trade mark for the KitKat shape. UK Registry of trade mark turned down the application by Nestle after hearing opposition from Cadbury in 2013. It is tough to see why Cadbury would want to stop Nestle from trademarking the four fingered shape of KitKat, as there are no similar rectangular fingered products made by Cadbury. It all seems to be a reciprocal war over minor details, one that is a persistence from a battle that ended in 2013 when Cadbury was refused a trademark over the use of the colour purple to package its chocolate.

Prior to the current case, there was another legal wrangle between the two giant chocolate makers regarding the registration of the colour purple as trade mark by Cadbury. But Nestle won the United Kingdom Court of Appeal ruling in October, 2013 blocking Cadbury from procuring a trade mark for the colour purple it uses to wrap its milk chocolate. After Nestle gridlocked Cadbury’s bid to trademark the colour purple used for its chocolate wrappers, the British unit of Mondelez International Inc. has turned the tables on its Swiss rival, opposing a similar effort by Nestle to protect the fingered shape of its KitKat bar. But Mondelez International Inc. owned Cadbury clashed with Nestle in EU’s top court.

Nestle succeeded in South Africa, where the Supreme Court favoured Nestle prohibiting IFFCO from selling fingered wafers which are similar to the KitKat two and four-finger shapes. However Judge KGB Swain added, “It is quite clear that the finger wafer shape trade marks in issue do not grant nestle a monopoly over trapezoidal chocolate bars”[1] But surprisingly Singapore Court struck down Nestle on KitKat Shape Trademark. In the year 2013 Nestle accused Petra Foods of overstepping its Singapore trade marks for two fingered and four fingered shapes with Delfi Take It bar. Singapore’s High Court ruled in Petra’s favour and accepted a counterclaim to annul Nestle’s Singaporean trade marks for the KitKat shape.

In this trademarked planet, even distinctive shapes of chocolate bars are a matter and companies are very cautious regarding every way and in making themselves equipped to beat the competitors.

Contributed by Vishnumolakala Chandra Sekhar – Intern, BananaIP Counsels

Related Posts

American music publisher, Bourne Co., co-founded in 1919 by songwriter Irving Berlin, has initiated&hellip


Watch the video: Maggs on Media. Kit Kat loses trademark battle (October 2021).