Call us today0800 160 1298

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Cadbury fails in appeal against trademark decision

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 72
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

A recent judgement at the Court of Appeal in Cadbury UK v The Comptroller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks has upheld a 2016 High Court decision meaning that confectionary manufacturer Cadbury is unable to revise part of a trade mark it owns by removing a description it feared had invalidated another of its marks.

The trade mark in question is for the purple colour used by Cadbury on many of its products, in particular on Dairy Milk , the UK’s best-selling chocolate bar. Cadbury owns two marks for the colour, one of which was invalidated following a lengthy dispute with rival Nestlé. The description for the trade mark at issue (the 876 mark) is as follows:

“The mark consists of the colour purple as shown on the form of application, applied to the whole visible surface, or being the predominant colour applied to the whole visible surface, of the packaging of the goods”

In 2014, Cadbury wrote to the registrar of trade marks at the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) submitting that the 876 mark ‘in fact sets out a series of two marks. One, referred to as ‘a’, applies to the colour purple on the ’whole visible surface of the packaging’, the other, ‘b’, that applies to purple being the ‘predominant colour’ on the packaging. It hoped to delete ‘b’ and retain ‘a’.

Cadbury, which feared its remaining trade mark could be invalidated, said it made the application in light of its dispute with Nestlé. The registrar refused Cadbury’s request on three grounds: it did not apply for a series mark at the time of registration; there was no ’mark’ to be deleted because the words in the registration did not describe a trade mark, and any deletion amounted to alteration not permitted under the Trade Marks Act 1994. The High Court subsequently backed the registrar’s decision.

Commenting on the the judgment, Lord Justice Christopher Floyd said:

Beguilingly though it was put, I cannot accept Cadbury’s argument that there are two marks.’ According to Floyd LJ, once one starts to 'parse the description’ on the basis that every option gives rise to a different mark, you are faced with the fact that the predominant colour wording itself covers a multitude of different signs…‘rather than reach such a conclusion, the informed reader of the registration would, I have no doubt, conclude that the various alternatives covered by the description were not intended to identify separate marks, but were parts of a generalised but imprecise description of a single mark"

A spokesperson Cadbury’s parent company Mondelēz, said:

Our iconic colour purple has been used for Cadbury chocolate products for more than a century and is synonymous with the brand. We will continue to protect what we believe is a distinctive trade mark.”

If you are thinking about suing another company but are worried about the costs of resolving the dispute or going to court, Advantage Litigation Services can help. We have vast experience navigating the different ways of funding commercial dispute resolution and are best placed to help you identify the most appropriate funding option and litigation protection that will best benefit you and your business. Click here to contact us or call 0800 160 1298 to discuss how we can help you manage the risks and find a funding option that works for you.

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • Staff at a Scottish clinical waste disposal firm are facing financial hardship as an ongoing contested insolvency action means that redundancy payments are being delayed. Staff at Dundee-based Healthcare Environmental Services (HES) have been caught up in a recent controversy following revelations that the business had been stockpiling human waste and body parts. The revelations resulted in the termination of a significant number of NHS contracts with HES, followed by the firms 100+ staff being given employment termination notices. HES’s management team, headed by MD Garry Pettigrew, are continuing to contest the insolvency process and find a buyer for the company, meaning that any redundancy payments to staff will not be made until the insolvency process is completed. HES staff have arranged a meeting with Dundee East MSP Shona Robison on Monday afternoon and are trying to rally support from... Read More

  • Sometimes, even an established professional such as a lawyer or solicitor can make a mistake that directly affects you or your business. Mistakes, whilst thankfully not that common in the UK, can mean that a wide range of claims may fail, contracts become invalid and you or your business are left picking up the pieces with the likely financial consequences that this entails. If you have had a problem with your solicitor and you would like to find out more about making a claim for compensation, there are 4 main factors to consider: Read More

  • In what is widely considered to be one of the largest claims in British legal history, a joint UU/US firm has filed a complaint at Liverpool High Court seeking £5bn in compensation for victims of an environmental catastrophe in Brazil. The law firm filing the complaint, SGP Law, is a new entrant to the UK legal scene and is comprised of a partnership between both UK and US Lawyers. SGP is representing 240,000 claimants, all of whom are alleged victims of the Sanmarco dam collapse in 2015, in which 19 people were killed and hundreds more were permanently displaced. The claim for £5bn is against mining company BHP Billiton has been filed in a UK Court as the legal action is more likely to be able to progress more quickly than if the claim was filed in Brazil. BHP Billiton is... Read More