Bureaucrats foil Nestlé's bid to TRADEMARK KitKat's chocolatey digits British bureaucrats' refusal to protect the KitKat chocolate bar's distinctive four-finger design from copycats has been slammed by UK lawyers as "remarkable" - and they say the decision has ominous implications for businesses fighting off competitors. The UK Intellectual Property Office - an agency of the government's …
Indeed, on reading the article I fondly remembered memories of the almost identical Norwegian choccy:
Delving into the history, only a couple of years separate their inception (yes the Kit Kat is earlier), but they've both been knocking around for nigh on 80 years, and Freia is now owned by Kraft Foods.
I see that Cadbury Dairy Milk bar (introduced 1905) has a trapezoidal profile to make it breakable, I suspect many other brands used a similar profile and that is why when Rowntree's brought out the Kit Kat in the 1930s they also used the same profile - but needed to make it taller to accommodate the crisp wafer.
I think we all know a KitKat imitation bar when we see it, customers are more sophisticated than the Penguin / Puffin altercation between McVities (United Biscuits) and Asda suggested.
I wonder how much of the Quaker influence/ethos of Rowntree's history carried forward into Rowntree-Mackintosh and thence to Nestle. Or was it all lost along the way.
(PS I still remember the smell of Rowntree's factory when in Norwich city centre)
>> The agency's staff have expanded their historic role of registering patents into politicking and lobbying Europe-wide for weaker intellectual property protection.
If this decision is anything to go by, they're actually lobbying for IP protection to go back to its original function of protecting people who had actually invented something, rather than a scam for large companies to hobble competition.
But that's really about patents and this is a trademark. Seems to me there's plenty of reasons why this should fail: 1) When sold the bar is concealed in a wrapper and presumably that is already trademarked, or features a logo that is 2) Nestle sell Kit Kat bars that don't have the four finger format, so it's hardly a unique identifier of the brand.
So how does this compare with the case of supermarket "own brand"..
Heinz , for example, would have their packaging designs trademarked. If you launched a ketchup brand using a bottle of an identical shape you'd find yourself dealing with some expensive lawyers.
You can't put Tony The Tiger on your frosted flakes either, but there's nothing stopping you using Charlie The Cheetah or Lenny The Leopard as your mascot.
Speaking of Tigers: Kellogg and Esso/Exxon went to court in the 90s over Kellogg's right to continue using Tony The Tiger.
Long story short- lawyers are parasites
Cadbury used to produce a bar called "Bar 6" which was a similar confection, but with 6 "bars" rather than fingers. Terrys also produced a two fingered wafer in chocolate bar called Riva.
There have also been numerous supermarket look-a-likes for ages, of both the 2 and 4 fingered variety.
I was sad when the writing on the top of each finger changed from Rowntrees to KitKat, although recently I was happy that Cadbury returned the Chocolate Cream confection to the Fry's banner again. Just waiting for the same to happen to the Crunchie.
Was the recent limited edition 5 fingered KitKat an attempt at a trademark landgrab, I wonder?
Whether it's Shreddies or Quality Street the Swiss monster has sucked up the company and sucked out the quality. Rowntree was a benevolent firm though it had already swallowed good Scottish confectioners like Duncan (Walnut Whip) and Mackintosh (Rolo etc).
What what were once called Malted Shreddies have dropped the word Malted from the pack and I now buy Sainsbury's Shreddies-alike in preference.
Quality Street (to be fair, never very good chocs) now inedible to me.
Much the same at Cadbury, even before the Kraft takeover.
Oddly, Mars products seem to retain their quality.
As someone on here has already said: KitKat have done various products under the KitKat banner without the four-finger profile. Surely if a KitKat was to be distinctively defined as having a four-finger design then, by virtue of that fact alone they have shot themselves in the foot (hence my title)?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
