Reforms to UK trade mark laws take effect – OUT-LAW.com
‘Businesses should note changes made to UK trade mark laws that came into effect on Monday, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 14th January 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
Category: trade marks
UK government publishes guidance to support new trade mark laws – OUT-LAW.com
‘The UK government has published documents designed to support the implementation of new trade mark laws, which come into force next year.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th October 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
What happens to trade marks and designs if there’s a no-deal Brexit? – Technology Law Update
‘The UK Government has published a notice about what will happen in relation to EU trade marks and designs if there is NO DEAL. The Government still regards NO DEAL as unlikely, but there is plenty of political uncertainty in the UK just now.’
Technology Law Update, 25th September 2018
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Kit Kat case: Time for a break in trademark row? – BBC News
‘When is a Kit Kat not a Kit Kat? If it’s a four-fingered wafer covered in chocolate, the Kit Kat people would tell you they own that design. Spare a thought, then, for identical treats like Norway’s Kvikk Lunsj – pronounced “quick lunch” – which has been around for 80 years. Nestlé has tried to trademark the chocolate bar’s three-dimensional shape for more than a decade, which rival Cadbury has fought hard against. The European Court of Justice is due to hand down judgement on Wednesday, which could end Kit Kat’s protected European status and a saga that has proved expensive for both sides.’
BBC News, 25th July 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
New UK trade mark laws finalised – OUT-LAW.com
‘New UK trade mark laws have been finalised, although they will not take effect until early next year.’
OUT-LAW.co., 13th July 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
Brexit: trade marks and designs – 10 things to know – OUT-LAW.com
‘While Brexit negotiations between the UK and EU are ongoing, the UK government and European Commission have found an agreement in principle that will alleviate many right holders’ concerns in respect of trade marks and designs.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th July 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
Nestlé’s KitKat dealt blow in trademark battle as EU adviser says it is not distinctive enough – Daily Telegraph
‘KitKat faces the loss of EU trade mark protection for its four-fingered chocolate bar, after a senior adviser to the European Court of Justice said the shape was not recognised by customers in enough countries.’
Daily Telegraph, 19th April 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
UK to allow ‘moving image’ trade marks – OUT-LAW.com
‘Businesses will be able to register trade marks for moving images under changes proposed to UK law.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st February 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
Unconventional trade marks are coming to an IP office near you – Technology Law Update
‘Changes to EU trade mark law are introducing new-style trade marks like motion marks, audiovisual files and holograms. The old requirement to represent all marks graphically (written words, drawings etc) is on its way out, although of course basic lettering and graphical images still remain relevant for word and logo marks.’
Technology Law Update, 1st February 2018
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Supreme Court begins to hear arguments regarding website blocking for trade mark infringements – OUT-LAW.com
‘A case before the UK’s Supreme Court is set to provide guidance on whether and to what extent internet service providers (ISPs) will be expected to pick up the cost of blocking customers’ access to websites that facilitate the sale of fake goods, an intellectual property law expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th January 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
Caspian Pizza Appeal – Caspian Pizza Ltd and Others v Shah and Another – NIPC Law
‘In Caspian Pizza Ltd and Others v Shah and Another [2015] EWHC 3567 (IPEC) (9 Dec 2015) Judge Hacon dismissed a claim for trade mark infringement and passing off. The trade marks relied upon were the device mark that appears above and the word mark CASPIAN. The judge declared the word mark invalid because the defendants had run a restaurant called “CASPIAN” in another part of the country which constituted an “earlier right” within the meaning of s.5 (4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. However, he did not declare the device mark invalid on the ground that the defendants had no goodwill in the running chef logo. I blogged about the case in Caspian Pizza Ltd and Others v Shah and Another on 24 Jan 2016.’
NIPC Law, 12th December 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
IP ‘threats’ law enters into force – Law Society’s Gazette
‘A law that could help intellectual property owners assert their rights more freely came into force yesterday. The Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 curtails a legal remedy available to a party threatened with IP infringement.’
Law Society's Gazette, 2nd October 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Trade Marks and Passing off – Coreix Ltd v Coretx Holdings Plc and Others – NIPC Law
‘This was a claim for trade mark infringement and passing off and an application for the cancellation of CORETX as a UK trade mark. The action was brought by Coreix Ltd. (“Coreix”) which was the registered proprietor of the word mark COREIX. The defendants are members of a group of companies that include the word CORETX in their corporate names, have registered CORETX sign as a word mark and supply ICT services under that mark as well as a device mark that includes the word CORETX.’
NIPC Law, 11th September 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
The sale of ‘grey goods’ can attract criminal penalties under trade mark law, rules UK Supreme Court – OUT-LAW.com
‘Criminal penalties can be imposed on businesses that engage in the sale of so-called ‘grey goods’, the UK Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd August 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
Morally questionable trade marks: why the US and Europe see things differently – Technology Law Update
‘In a landmark ruling last week, the US Supreme Court held that the rule against disparaging trademarks in the Lanham Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment right to free speech. The case concerned an application by a rock band to register “THE SLANTS” (widely used as a slang, derogatory term for people of Asian descent) as a US Federal trademark. The band, themselves Asian American, were making a point, reclaiming a word that had been used against them as an insult. They certainly gained themselves some publicity along the way.’
Technology Law Update, 27th June 2017
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Firms face trade mark squatting woes – Law Society’s Gazette
‘International law firms face being held to ransom after falling foul of China’s problematic trade mark filing rules.’
Law Society's Gazette, 6th June 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Mere association of Nestlé shape mark with Kit Kat brand ‘fatal’ to claims of acquired distinctiveness, rules court – OUT-LAW.com
‘Kit Kat manufacturer Nestlé has had its bid to trade mark the shape of its four-fingered chocolate bar rejected by the Court of Appeal in London in a ruling which could impact on similar applications to trade mark shapes deemed not to be inherently distinctive.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd May 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
Nestlé foiled by Cadbury as it loses bid to trademark KitKat bar – The Independent
‘KitKat-maker Nestlé has been foiled again, after a UK Court of Appeal ruled that the consumer goods giant cannot trademark the shape of its popular four-fingered chocolate bar.’
The Independent, 17th may 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Pictures alone cannot define how colour trade marks should be applied, rules Court of Appeal – OUT-LAW.com
‘Pictures alone cannot define how colour trade marks should be applied, the Court of Appeal in London has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th May 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
Drug company’s use of trade mark rights to restrict rival imports legitimate, rules Court of Appeal – OUT-LAW.com
‘A drug company was entitled to rely on its trade mark rights to stop two businesses from importing into the UK the same product as it sold on the basis that the rivals’ product would be sold under the drug company’s name, the Court of Appeal in London has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th April
Source: www.out-law.com
