NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Measd) Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1671 (Ch) (5 July 2022) This was an appeal from Louise White's decision in The Colour Purple, Société des Produits Nestlé  SA v Cadbury UK Ltd, BL O/198/19 of 12 April 2019. The hearing officer had heard oppositions by Société des Produits Nestlé ("Nestlé") to the following trade mark applications by Cadbury UK Ltd. ("Cadbury"): Application No 3 019 362 Application No 3 019 361 , and  Application No 3 025 822 . She found for the opponent in respect of application numbers3025822 and 3019361 but not application number 3019362. Cadbury appealed against her decision on 025822 and 3019361. Before the appeal could be heard. Cadbury settled its differences with Nestlé.  The Registrar of Trade Marks considered that the appeal gave rise to important issues where the law was uncertain and sought to intervene in the proceedings.  Permission to do son was granted...

J ane Lambert Chancery Division (HH Judge Melissa Clarke)  Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v Ineos Industries Holdings Ltd [2020] EWHC 2130 (Ch) (3 Aug 2020) On 11 April 2016, Jaguar Landrover Ltd. ("JLR") applied to register the shapes of the Land Rover Defender 90 and Land Rover Defender 110 motor vehicles, in each case with and without rear-mounted spare wheels ("the Marks") and the shapes of the Defender 90 and 110 with spare wheels, in classes 9, 12, 14, 28 and 37.  On 12 May 2016, that company applied to register the shapes of the Defender 90 and 110 without spare wheels. Unlike registered designs, design rights and copyrights, trade marks can be renewed indefinitely. It is not easy to register the shape of a product because there are restrictions on the registrations of signs that consist exclusively of indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production...

Jane Lambert Chancery Division (HH Judge Hacon)  Fromageries Bel SA v J Sainsbury Plc [2019] EWHC 3454 (Ch) (12 Dec 2019) This was an appeal against Mr Allan James's decision  of 13 Feb 2019 that the registration of the above 3-dimensional sign under trade mark number UK2060882  was invalid. The hearing officer held that 'the colour red' in the description of the mark was insufficiently clear or precise and that a particular hue of red should have been specified. The proprietor's grounds of appeal were as follows: "(1) The Hearing Officer erred in applying the Sieckmann criteria to a mark that is not a colour mark per se. (2) The Hearing Officer erred in failing to interpret the registration as being limited to the red colour shown in the pictorial representation of the registered mark. (3) Alternatively, if the Sieckmann criteria apply to a mark that is not a colour mark per se and if the registration was not already limited, then the...