The eatery in question is slotting chocolate fingers of all flavours within the folds of warm patisserie full details here. Nestle bought Rowntree in and filed to protect the shape of the chocolate bar as a trademark in This application within the UK market was turned down in If granted, Nestle may have been able to stop similar products being made by competitors. Nestle argues that the shape of the KitKat is distinctive enough to recognise without the red packaging or the name printed on the chocolate.
At the opposite side of the argument, rivals Cadbury counter that the shape of the chocolate bar is merely the easiest way to put a wafer bar together. Nestle argue that they have submitted evidence that indicates a high degree of association between the shape and the product. Those three grounds state that a trademark shall not be registered if it consists exclusively of:. However, this is not necessarily correct we wonder if one or more PR companies might have encouraged this relatively one-sided reporting?
In fact the ruling might be seen as being in favour of Nestle as it leaves open the possibility that the KitKat shape mark could be allowed registration by the UK High Court, which must now apply these guidelines and might allow registration of the KitKat shape as a trademark. Where do you stand on the KitKat debate? Is the distinct colour or shape of your product fundamental to your business?
Get in touch to discuss how London IP can help you put protection in place. Skip to content. KitKats, four-fingered innovation and trademarking. Why does Nestle want to protect the KitKat?
The argument for and against Nestle argues that the shape of the KitKat is distinctive enough to recognise without the red packaging or the name printed on the chocolate. The KitKat trademark campaign takes a break? Previous Post. Next Post.
