header-logo header-logo

25 September 2015
Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No break for KitKat from European Court of Justice

The “four finger” shape of a KitKat is not distinctive enough for it to be registered as a trademark, according to a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling.

The ECJ was ruling in Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd (Case C-215/14), concerning Nestlé’s application to register the shape as a 3D mark in the UK. Nestlé argued that the shape was distinct even without packaging or the word KitKat embossed on the chocolate. Cadbury disagreed.

The ECJ ruled that the shape of the bar on its own was not enough to identify the chocolate bar’s origin and therefore could not be registered as a trademark. The case will now return to the High Court for a final ruling.

Lee Curtis, partner at intellectual property firm HGF, says: “This is a dispute about one company, Nestle, trying to monopolise the shape of a product, a KitKat chocolate bar, and in time stopping others using that shape, most notably in this case Cadbury.

“Taken with the original comments from the high court judge, the ECJ decision would imply that a 90% consumer recognition of the shape of the bar by the British public is not enough to give Nestle that monopoly right.”

Nick Bolter, trademark and copyright partner at Cooley (UK) LLP, says: “It is my view that the exclusion from trademark registration of shapes dictated by function was intended to prevent businesses using trademarks to create monopolies that extend beyond the protection of indicators of origin.”

Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll