Editorial & Advertiser Disclosure Global Banking And Finance Review is an independent publisher which offers News, information, Analysis, Opinion, Press Releases, Reviews, Research reports covering various economies, industries, products, services and companies. The content available on globalbankingandfinance.com is sourced by a mixture of different methods which is not limited to content produced and supplied by various staff writers, journalists, freelancers, individuals, organizations, companies, PR agencies Sponsored Posts etc. The information available on this website is purely for educational and informational purposes only. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any of the information provided at globalbankingandfinance.com with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. Globalbankingandfinance.com also links to various third party websites and we cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of the information provided by third party websites. Links from various articles on our site to third party websites are a mixture of non-sponsored links and sponsored links. Only a very small fraction of the links which point to external websites are affiliate links. Some of the links which you may click on our website may link to various products and services from our partners who may compensate us if you buy a service or product or fill a form or install an app. This will not incur additional cost to you. A very few articles on our website are sponsored posts or paid advertorials. These are marked as sponsored posts at the bottom of each post. For avoidance of any doubts and to make it easier for you to differentiate sponsored or non-sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles on our site or all links to external websites as sponsored . Please note that some of the services or products which we talk about carry a high level of risk and may not be suitable for everyone. These may be complex services or products and we request the readers to consider this purely from an educational standpoint. The information provided on this website is general in nature. Global Banking & Finance Review expressly disclaims any liability without any limitation which may arise directly or indirectly from the use of such information.

TRADEMARK PROTECTION: LESSONS FROM CADBURY, NESTLE AND STEIFF

The decision of the British Court of Appeal last October to refuse the registration of Cadbury’s trademark application for a specific shade of purple used on its chocolate products, received deservedly a lot of attention from intellectual property (IP) practitioners worldwide. On the basis of lack of certainty, the Court of Appeal caused even more uncertainty by disallowing the exclusive use of a shade of purple that has traditionally been Cadbury’s prerogative.

TRADEMARK PROTECTION: LESSONS FROM CADBURY, NESTLE AND STEIFF 1The Court held that the trademark was too vague, touching upon a lack of ‘clarity, intelligibility, specificity, precision, accessibility, uniformity, self-containment and objectivity’. As reported, a valid trademark must not ‘take on a multitude of different appearances which would create problems for registration of the mark and give an unfair competitive advantage over competitors’. Even though the shade of Pantone 2685c is specific and its use by Cadbury over the years has been consistent, the Court reasoned that the verbal description of the mark was too broad; hence it did not satisfy the requirement of a ‘sign’ within the meaning of the EU trademark directive.

Since last year, Cadbury has turned the tables over to Nestle, who marked the end of the purple reign, by opposing the registration of the shape of Nestle’s Kit Kat bar. The matter has been referred to the EU Court in Luxembourg for guidance on EU law.  The EU directive on trademarks is unclear on the treatment of shape-registrations and unlike other jurisdictions such as Australia where the levels of distinctiveness offered are three, the EU offers only two. In another high profiled case, the General Court of the EU rejected last January Steiff’s application for a positional Community Trademark on its teddy bears for reasons of lack of distinctiveness.

While the EU directive on trademarks is in need of an overhaul, there are reportedly over 500 million trademark applications per year at both national and EU level. Only 10% of these applications are made through EU’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Alicante. The demand for trademark protection is high as is the necessity for certainty in the interpretation of what constitutes a valid trademark.

The function of a trademark is threefold, it identifies the origin of goods and services, it guarantees consistent quality by showing an organization’s commitment to its users and consumers, and last but not least, it is a form of communication, a basis for publicity and advertising. At a time when the exchange of information is affected at remarkable speed through social networks and platforms, it becomes all the more important for a modernized and flexible trademark registration regime that encompasses the radical growth of communication and technology.

Cyprus offers protection of trademarks at a national, an EU and an international level. With experienced human infrastructure in the registration of trademarks, a solid legal system guided by UK and EU rules and an attractive IP tax regime applicable to registered trademarks, it is no coincidence that Cyprus has witnessed a number of high-profiled IP transactions the past few years.