Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  WEDNESDAY, 29 APRIL 2009
Maltesers: Take A Break Take A KitKat Ball

Since 2006 well-known chocolate snack manufacturers Mars and Nestlé are involved in trade mark infringement proceedings before Belgian courts over trade marks registered by Mars for 'Maltesers', small, light, round, wrapped around with chocolate little balls, offered in a red coloured package which bear the trade mark 'Maltesers' and pictures of the chololate balls. Mars registered the packaging as a figurative trade mark, and also an abstract composition of the balls (without the word mark Maltesers; to be short: a sort of O2 of chocolate balls - Benelux registration with number 801054). In 2003 Nestlé introduced similar looking chocolate balls based on the well known rectangular KitKat cookies, using the name 'KitKat Ball' in Belgium, also in a red coloured package with chocolate balls floating around the trade mark Kit Kat. After the Antwerp Court of Commerce dismissed the infringement claims (mainly - to be very short - while the court found no risk of confusion, because the word marks on the packaging are dominant and so different that the public, familiar with 'such ready to eat candies', will not 

be confused) Mars appealed to the Antwerp Court of Appeal, while Nestlé invoked the invalidity of the chocolate balls composition trade mark with a counterclaim. With a decision of April 9, 2009 the Court of Appeal honoured the invalidity claim and accordingly denied the appeal by Mars. I try to summarize the Court's considerations with regard to the invalidity of the trade mark:

A. The trade mark shows only the product itself ('a small round light cookie wrapped around with chocolate in a dynamic - more or less floating or flying - grouping that is common in the candy business against a very common red coloured background that is usual, non distinctive in the milkchocolate business');

B. The trade mark uses a combination of elements which are usual in the trade of sweets and accordingly lacks distinctiveness. It has no capacity to refer to the commercial origin of the product;

C. 'In the end this trade mark is nothing more or less than a marketing consideration due to which the packaging of the product is illustrated to show the appearance of the product and accordingly different from the care for the product to identify it with a trade mark. The red background colour is only used because of its attractive power in this business and also as pure decoration, not to communicate any secondary meaning. The 'certain arrangement, density and reflection of the litlle balls' as invoked by Mars, is apart from the obvious reality of that arrangement in the trade mark, nothing more than the sum of the non distinctive elements and lacks therefore distintiveness.'

D. The trade mark has not acquiered distinctiveness through use, apparently because the chocolate balls configuration used on the packaging does not match with the trade mark, and furthermore because the trade mark is not used as such, but allways in combination with 'Maltesers';

E. Market surveys from Mars are not evident and well-found criticized by Nestlé;

F. Conclusion: the trade mark has no distinctiveness at all and furthermore only consists of elements that are usual in the bona fide trade of ready to eat chocolate snacks.

Posted by: Gino Van Roeyen @ 23.00 
Tags: Belgium, Benelux case law, chocolate,

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3257 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
515 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
+ 2011
+ 2010
- 2009
     + December (44)
     + November (55)
     + October (49)
     + September (48)
     + August (39)
     + July (54)
     + June (54)
     + May (55)
     - April (54)
Spain – recent Judgment on trade mark dilution.
ECJ rejects SAFETY 1ST mark
CHURROS is regarded non-distinctive in Denmark for Spanish waffles
Maltesers: Take A Break Take A KitKat Ball
Poland: 3D cheese in a cask marks
UK IPO: Tribunal Practice Notice (TPN 2/2009)
Poland: Nice Classification in proceedings
PAN 02/09 - Procedure Governing the Appointment of Ex Parte Hearings
UK IPO: "The International Examination Guide" updated
A Kind of Blue: Blue Wonder vs Rio Fantastic Blue
PAGO Opinion coming up next week
Spain – Olympics and Trade Mark Law.
ECJ gives Copad ruling on exhaustion and luxury goods
European Trusted Brands 2009
Poland: some simplified seizures stats for 2008
Obama trade marks
Community design survey: can you help?
Andruty kaliskie gains GI status
OHIM: April Edition of Alicante News
German Federal Patent Court: CCCP
Google v igoogle cybersquatter: 2-0
OHIM closed on 23 April 2009
Revamp of www.dkpto.org - you can help!
Poland: Illegal hare
German Patent and Trademark Office: DPMAregister replaces DPINFO from 30 April 2009
Lamborghini successful as WIPO orders transfer of < lamborghini.tv > to famous carmaker
Poland: whose Heritage is this?
UK IPO: Relocation from Harmsworth House
Two Italian PDO specs to change
Finland: Blue Water and Chocolate
Spain - the "superbrands", revealed.
A new Trade Mark Act for Greece?
Recent trade mark publications
MARQUES essay competition: a reminder
Trade Mark treat of the day
Impact of the new Council Regulation
Spain – An oddity: dive into the Trademark Office archives and visit the Grand-grandpas.
Spain: the Supreme Court on 3D marks … again!
Switzerland: 'Swissness' protection to include foodstuffs
Poland: the nature of a decision
Still no infringement of Tuc cracker shape, says German appellate court
Poland: reputation and renown of non-registered trade marks
Cold comfort for FREON in FREOR fridge cancellation action
AdWords: French first instance court condemns the advertiser
Trouble for Gucci's face-to-face Gs in Sweden
Poland: rules for non-use of a trade mark
Finland: In the year 2015
Poland: ASPIRIN v PLUSPIRYNA
SUNPLUS confusingly similar to SUN, rules ECJ
M-Tel "best Bulgarian brand" in independent survey
Bundesgerichtshof: STREETBALL
Trade Mark Treat of the Day
The EU Commission to prepare a draft Regulation on the labelling of wine.
Brackish rice and winged cakes seek PGI protection
     + March (57)
     + February (48)
     + January (61)
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors