‘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
‘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
‘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
‘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
‘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
‘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
‘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
‘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
‘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
‘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
‘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
‘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, the Court of Appeal in London has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th May 2017
Source: www.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
‘Online marketing activity carried out separately by two rival bathroom retailers respectively infringed trade mark and passing off rights, the High Court in London has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘More than 8,000 web addresses were suspended by Nominet during the year up to the end of October 2016, more than double the number suspended in the previous 12 months, the internet registry for ‘.uk’ domain names has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The recent sale of rights to broadcast The Great British Bake Off has highlighted the legal challenges facing broadcasters keen to protect their rights and interests in TV formats.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th October 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Swimmer Ryan Lochte probably isn’t bothering anyone by trademarking ‘Jeah’, his bizarre victory scream – but can Specsavers really patent ‘should’ve’, or can Facebook own ‘face’ and ‘book’? The world of trademark law is murky indeed.’
The Guardian, 20th August 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The UK’s Intellectual Property Office has approved Specsavers’ application to trademark the terms “should’ve” and “shouldve” to protect its well-known catchphrase.’
The Guardian, 16th August 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The UK’s Intellectual Property Office has issued a briefing on the future for IP rights after Brexit. This gives IP owners some crumbs of comfort to innovative businesses, but little detail.’
Technology Law Update, 5th August 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025