• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees’ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Cadbury purple color mark cannot be split

28. January 2019

The colour purple from the international confectionery manufacturer Cadbury cannot be split as a trademark in the UK. The British Court of Appeal rejected Cadbury’s altered trademark application for “Color Purple” in December. This judgment provides a summary about registration of abstract colour marks.

Original trademark description not precise

CadburyCadbury color brand LilaCadbury has been trying for years to protect the color violet as the UK brand “Color Purple”. Already in 1995 Cadbury filed a trademark application for the color purple. The description stated that the trade mark consisted of the colour purple, as represented on the application form, or of the predominant colour applied to the entire visible surface of the packaging of the goods.

In opposition proceedings against the colour mark, Nestlé was successful in 2013 against Cadbury, which since 2010 has been part of the US food giant Kraft and thus Mondelēz International. The Court held that the term “predominant colour” allowed a variety of different figurative forms, so that the application for registration constituted several signs which were not described with certainty or precision.

Cadbury argued with serial trademark

Following that decision, Cadbury attempted to alter the second part of its trade mark application, which contained the predominant colour. Cadbury argued that there were two marks in an alleged series; one describing how purple is applied to the entire visible surface and a second describing how purple is the predominant colour applied to the entire visible surface. Cadbury tried to delete the second brand in this series.

The rules applicable to Cadbury’s factory trade mark at the time of its application were the trade mark rules of 1994, Rule 21:
“The owner of a number of marks may apply to the Registrar for registration as a series in a single registration, and that application must include a representation of each mark applied for; and the Registrator will accept the application if he is satisfied that the marks form a series”. These rules have been replaced by the 2008 trademark rules which were relevant at the time of Cadbury’s request to delete the predominant colour formulations.
This was invoked by Cadbury because Rule 28 provides that “The applicant for registration of a series of trade marks or the proprietor of a registered series of trade marks may request cancellation of a trade mark in that series at any time and the Registrar shall cancel the trade mark accordingly upon request”.

But neither the Registrar nor the High Court accepted that the two alternatives in the description constituted a series mark. The Regististrar didn’t accept an application to alter a registered trade mark.

The Court of Appeal also dismissed Cadbury’s appeal in December 2018. The wording of the description leads to an unknown number of different signs consisting of variations in the use of the colour purple on the packaging and therefore does not describe the colour mark with the necessary precision. An application for registration of a trade mark relating to all conceivable shapes forming part of the external surface is not a ‘sign’ and is therefore not capable of constituting a trade mark within the meaning of trade mark protection.

Registration of an abstract colour as a trade mark

There is no objection in principle to the registration of a colour as a trade mark, even if it is not spatially defined, the United Kingdom Court of Appeal clarified – if it is found that the colour has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services of a particular undertaking. (C-104/01 Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau[2003]). However, the mark must be represented graphically in a manner which is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.

The Court of Appeal also clearly stated that the decision to register an abstract colour mark always depends on the context. The British court referred to the Heidelberger Bauchemie case for the ECJ (C-49/02, 2004) and quoted from that judgment:

“In this context, it should be noted that a colour cannot in itself be assumed to be a sign. Normally a colour is a simple property of things. Nevertheless, it can be a sign. This depends on the context in which the color is used. Nevertheless, in relation to a product or service, a colour per se is capable of “forming” a sign.

Registration of an abstraction of two or more colours

The United Kingdom Court of Appeal also referred to the present case-law concerning the registration of a colour mark consisting of two or more colours (Heidelberger Bauchemie, C-49/02, 2004). A graphic representation consisting of two or more colours, designated in abstraction and without contours, must be arranged systematically by associating the colours concerned in a predetermined and uniform manner. The mere juxtaposition of two or more colours, without shape or contours, or a reference to two or more colours “in any form imaginable” does not show the characteristics of precision and uniformity required for a trade mark registration.

 

Would you also like to protect your brand or trademark?

Then please do not hesitate to contact us. Our patent attorneys and attorneys at law are experienced and highly qualified in all areas of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Request your call-back without any obligations!

CAT-call_en

Source:

Court of Appeal A3/2012/2702 – Nestlé vs Cadbury 2013

Court of Appeal A3/2016/3082 Cadbury Dec 2018

Picture:

AppletonOnfoot / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law,  Trademark Law Tag iconUK,  Nestle,  Cadbury,  Monedeliz,  chocolate,  color mark,  abstract colour,  registration of a mark,  Color Purple,  Court of Appeal,  Trademark

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Design Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Action against a patent already expired 26. February 2021
  • Design protection in China: Amendment 2021 25. February 2021
  • EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform 18. February 2021
  • BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest 16. February 2021

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

25. February 2021
Design protection in China: Amendment 2021

Design protection in China: Amendment 2021

16. February 2021
BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

16. February 2021
UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

11. February 2021
EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

9. February 2021
BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

4. February 2021
Protecting domain names as trademarks

Protecting domain names as trademarks

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form