Christopher D'Avanzo的动态

Anyone for a Ruby Murray? Well, it seems like you need to be careful about what you say... Hospitality operator Dishoom is challenging the option to use the term on its menus and is trying to get an IPO trademark revoked. A Dishoom spokeswoman said: “A third party has a trademark registration for Ruby Murray, and we don’t believe that they have ever used it. There is a principle of ‘use or lose it’ in trademark law, and we have therefore asked the UK IPO to remove the Ruby Murray mark from the register. Dishoom is not seeking to apply to register Ruby Murray in its own name. It wishes to remove the ‘monopoly’ on the use of Ruby Murray so it can be used freely by anyone when referring to curry.” In 2019, Aziz successfully registered Ruby Murray as a food and drinks trademark. The following year, the company director set up Murray Ruby, described by Companies House as “takeaway food shops and mobile food stands”.? Who even knew it was a protected phrase? We help our clients protect their brands and choose brand names for new products/ranges, but when we do so, we always enlist the "Legal Michelle" to hold their hands. Michelle Ward from Indelible IP has been supporting our clients for many years now and is always a sensible, realistic person to have on your side. Simply put, you need a Marketing Michelle AND a Legal Michelle. So, anyone for a Ruby Murray? Now wondering if I will be in trouble for posting this... #trademark #foodservice #foodmarketing #foodindustry

KFC has recently challenged Grill’d, arguing that the wording of their new “HFC” product (standing for “Healthy Fried Chicken”) is far too similar to their well-known brand, opposing the trademark registration application. KFC’s grounds were that even though the initial letters differ (‘K’ and ‘H’), when placed side by side, they both look and sound identical and are deviously similar. Grill’d fought KFC on the basis that: - ‘KFC’ and ‘HFC’ are distinguishable enough, being initialisms, not acronyms, and that each letter was clearly pronounced differently; - ‘FC’ is an obvious abbreviation for ‘fried chicken’; and - The differences between ‘H’, standing for Healthy, and ‘K’, standing for Kentucky, were significantly different. For details on the decision, further arguments, key takeaways and how we can help your business, take a read of our full article below! #dispute #trademark #business #businessowner #IP #lawyer #melbourne

?? Big Mac Attack: McDonald's Trademark Gets Grilled by the EU! ?? I am known for constantly repeating the same thing, which is every business should and must protect their brand as part of their wider, commercial business strategy. Over the last weeks and months, I have seen multiple stories pop-up, and specifically in the food and drink space. Whether it be a large supermarket ?? calling their new ice-cream based dessert the same a Pleese's products or judges being invited to 'blinde taste tests' of cider in a tale that involves the same supermarket and a popular British purveyor of cider! It has got to the point where I have noticed that the BBC have got a dedicated 'Trademark disputes' page! ?? The latest relates to the title of this post being a success story in another David v Goliath trade mark battle (typically my favourite ones given we tend to represent the small(er) guys!??). Here is my summary of it: In a landmark decision, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has today ruled against McDonald's, revoking its rights to the "Big Mac" trademark in the EU, especially for chicken burgers. ????? Key Points: The Battle: Supermac’s fought since 2015 to register its name in the EU. McDonald's opposed, citing similarity to "Big Mac." The Ruling: ECJ found McDonald's hadn't proven genuine use of the "Big Mac" trademark for restaurant names and chicken products. Restrictions on the "Big Mac" trade mark: Chicken Burgers: No longer exclusive for chicken sandwiches and poultry products. Wave goodbye to the 'chicken Big-Mac'! ?? Restaurant Services: "Big Mac" can't be used for restaurant names, drive-throughs, or carry-out foods. Impact and takeaways for small businesses? This ruling shows that small players can win against giants and as such you should: (1) Stay Active: Use and promote your trade marks! (2) Document Everything: Keep thorough, independent records! (3) Be Bold: Challenge larger competitors if your rights are infringed! This ruling highlights the power of small businesses and the need for diligent trade mark management. In essence, invest in what makes your business unique and helps your customers recognise your brand in the marketplace! ? ?? You can read more here: https://lnkd.in/e6BcbrUy

Your company might not be 155 years old, but it might someday have one thing in common with Campbell’s: changing its name. Company name changes are fairly common and are generally not overly complicated. Depending on the type of company, perhaps the board needs to pass a resolution. Submit the necessary paperwork to the state in which the company is organized, and soon afterward the change is complete. All done, right? If your company has registered and/or applied to register its trademarks with the USPTO, you’re not done yet. To ensure the records at the USPTO are correct, it’s necessary to record the change of name with the Assignment Recordation Branch. Your trademark counsel will gather the necessary information from you and will submit the name change to the USPTO. Soon after the USTPO accepts the change, it will be reflected in the records of the company’s applications and registrations. Recording the name change is not merely an administrative task; it ensures actions taken with respect to applications and registrations go smoothly. For example, if when making a maintenance filing there is a mismatch between the company name on record and the name in the filing, the USPTO will refuse the filing until the issue is resolved. Or if you file an application in the new name of the company, your own company’s existing registrations might be cited against that application. The lesson: don’t overlook talking with trademark counsel when your company is undergoing a change, whether to its name, address, entity type, or state of organization. (Note that in Campbell’s case, their trademark portfolio is in the name of what appears to be a holding company, CSC Brands LP. If that company name isn’t changing, they won't need to do any of the above. But the lesson still stands!)

#McDonalds in the EU loses the right to use the term #BigMac with respect chicken sandwiches and other chicken products due to non-use of the term over a period of five years. Well done to Supermac who has fought McD since 2016 on this and other copyright issues. “This judgment is a reminder that even well-known brands may face cancellation or partial cancellation proceedings. In defending proceedings for revocation or cancellation the evidence adduced should clearly show the mark and that the mark is used in commerce in respect of the relevant goods and or services and during the relevant time. Token or once-off use may be insufficient. Brand owners should retain evidenc of use and maintain comprehensive records. Brand portfolios should be regularly reviewed and protection obtained for all forms of the mark, for all relevant goods and/or services and in all relevant territories.” #JaniceGalvad #CopyrightLaw #UseLaw #AdamsandAdams

Brands are more than just names and logos – they represent the identity and reputation of a company. That's why managing and protecting a brand is crucial for businesses, regardless of their size or industry. Even giants like McDonald's can stumble when it comes to brand management. Recently, McDonald's lost a trademark battle against an Irish fast-food chain called Supermac's over the use of the name "Big Mac" for one of Supermac's burger products. This case highlights how even a well-established brand like McDonald's can face challenges in safeguarding its intellectual property. Effective brand management involves carefully monitoring and defending trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property rights associated with a brand. It's not just about preventing others from using similar names or logos, but also about maintaining the brand's reputation and preventing any dilution or tarnishing of the brand image. For companies, neglecting brand management can lead to costly legal battles, consumer confusion, and even loss of market share. That's why businesses, big or small, should prioritize protecting their brand as a valuable asset, just like they would protect their physical assets or inventions.

A long running dispute between Irelands Supermac's restaurant chain and McDonald's has resulted in cancellation of McDonalds European trade mark registration for the Big Mac.?Why??The SuperMac company is named after its founder Pat McDonagh, who is said to have earned the name while playing Gaelic football in his youth.?When SuperMac's applied to register their SUPERMAC'S mark as a word mark for restaurant services, McDonalds filed an opposition based on their prior registration of Big Mac.?McDonalds also claimed that branding of Supermac’s was too similar to its own and would cause confusion among consumers.?Supermac's responded by applying for cancellation of the European registration for BIG MAC.?The EUIPO ruled that the evidence supplied by McDonald's was insufficient to establish genuine use of the trademark Big Macs across the EU.?This decision clearly outlines the need to think carefully about the type and extent of evidence filed to support use of a mark.?Even when you might expect a mark to be well known, without full evidence of commercial use the Office will not be able to make a finding of genuine use. The below article goes into more detail about the background of the decision:

Nestle's Blue Bottle Coffee has lost a trademark battle against BLUE BREW, owned by an individual from Taiwan. On cross-motions, a California federal judge granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in the nearly 3-year old battle in favor of Blue Brew. Although the opinion is quite complex, the court held there was no evidence that consumers would be confused. Blue Bottle Coffee was founded in 2002 and in 2017 a majority stake was acquired by Nestle. Millions are spent on marketing and advertising the brand. Blue Brew named its brand because of the blue mountains in Jamaica and the fact remains that the word "blue" is used often in the coffee category with nearly 200 active registrations containing the term for coffee goods at the USPTO (with many more for pending applications). Blue Bottle argued its mark was distinctive and arbitrary, but the court found its mark merely suggestive. The Court found the marks were not similar and did not believe the trade dress used by each of the companies were similar. Moreover, the court found the 3 Pantone shades shown in the thumbnail below are not "“an identical or nearly identical shade of blue" as Blue Bottle alleged. Do you think the right result was reached in this case? Are you confused between these two brands? #brandprotection #trademarks #trademarkinfringement

The recent EU court ruling against McDonald's in a trademark dispute over the "Big Mac" is poised to have significant implications for the fast-food giant's operations across Europe. This decision marks a substantial win for the Irish chain Supermac’s, which argued that McDonald's had not demonstrated genuine use of the "Big Mac" trademark in recent years. Key Insights: Impact on Branding: McDonald's will no longer have exclusive rights to the "Big Mac" name in Europe. This could open the door for other businesses to use the "Big Mac" name, diluting McDonald's brand presence and potentially leading to market confusion. Operational Adjustments: McDonald's might need to rebrand or rename its popular Big Mac burger in certain markets, which could involve substantial marketing and operational costs. This could affect its menu consistency and brand identity, which have been critical to its global success. Competitive Landscape: Competitors like Burger King have already started capitalizing on this ruling by creatively mocking McDonald's in their marketing campaigns, further challenging McDonald's market position. Legal and Strategic Lessons: This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for companies about the importance of demonstrating continuous and genuine use of trademarks. It underscores the necessity for robust evidence to support trademark claims and highlights the risks of trademark "hoarding" without active use. #McDonalds #BigMac #Trademark #EUlaw #BusinessNews #BrandStrategy