3D Trade Marks – Yes, there really is such a thing! All You Need to Know (& Understand!)

3D Trade Marks – Yes, there really is such a thing! All You Need to Know (& Understand!)

 

Three-dimensional (3D) trade marks are currently something of a hot topic and some of the biggest names in the licensing, toy and nursery sectors have had their fair share of media exposure in recent years because of their success, or indeed failure, to get their brand protected with this fairly new form of IP rights.

Coca Cola, Mondelez (Toblerone), Hard Rock Café, and Chanel are a few to have obtained protection for their product’s shape or packaging because of unique and distinctive characteristics; these successful applications undoubtedly cement their place in the commercial marketplace and support ongoing success.  In contrast Nestle (Kit Kat), Jaguar Land Rover, Lego and Rubik’s Brand (Rubik’s Cube), all failed in their bids for 3D trade mark protection.   

At Wynne-Jones IP our trade mark team believe that 3D trade marks can provide unparalleled commercial benefits and industry success.  The Rubik’s Cube high-profile case when they lost their 3D trade mark rights in 2016 should have made toy companies sit up and think about 3D protection and ensuring they are adequately protected for now, and the future.  The EUIPO has taken some harsh decisions and several brands have failed to gain this protection, when many would agree they were probably deserving of them.  

But don’t let this discourage you if you’re confident you have a legitimate case in seeking this protection – give our team a call and we’ll be able to have an open discussion on your queries, concerns and requirements.

What is different about a 3D trade mark?

It needs to fulfil the standard criteria for registration but must not be descriptive and needs to be able to distinguish goods and/or services of one undertaking from those of others. Simply put, the more uncommon or fanciful the shape, the more likely the rights will be granted.

What makes it desirable? 

If registered, it should provide the owner with a right to the exclusive use of the shape of the product itself or for the packaging, in relation to a range of goods and/or services. This provides the owner with a clear commercial advantage in both manufacturing and sales, plus a monopoly in perpetuity so long as it’s renewed and used.

The 3D criteria and those who’ve succeeded and failed: 

This first criterion is where the shape of the goods is unique to the generic function of them. For example, the shape of a football will be refused protection.  Stokke A/S was granted a 3D trade mark for its Tripp Trapp high-chair but this was invalidated because it was found that the shape results from the nature of the goods themselves.

The second criterion has been the pitfall for many branded products such as Lego - the mark applied for was a shape with essential characteristics which performed the technical function of the product i.e. Lego bricks attaching to each another.  Days after Lego’s registration was obtained competitor Mega Brands contested it and a lengthy legal process followed with Lego’s registration ruled invalid as its shape allowed, and was necessary, for the product to achieve a technical result.

The third criterion relates exclusively to the intrinsic value of the shape and does not take any account of the attractiveness of the goods flowing from the reputation of the trade mark or its proprietor; this criterion has become the subject of many legal cases.  In the famous 2016 London Black Cab case the cab’s shape was found to be giving substantial value to the goods and was rejected as it was already registered as a design.

A successful example and one of the first 3D registrations is for the global iconic drinks brand Coca Cola.  The distinctive bottle, with its recognisable contouring, was deemed individual enough to receive 3D trade mark protection.  Coca Cola’s bottles are instantly equated with the company itself, and Coca Cola has been able to maintain exclusivity for its own bottle’s unique shape and appearance on high street shelves worldwide, helping to set it apart as a market leader.

The Wynne-Jones IP viewpoint: “The more distinctive a brand is, and its individual shape, appearance and ability to be linked exclusively with the overarching company, the greater the chance of success.  We encourage any companies considering registering their product as a 3D trade mark to thoroughly research the marketplace and talk to us.  3D trade mark rights remain a complex and evolving area of intellectual property law but future rulings will help define the scope of registrations made.  Success, whilst rare, can result in transformative benefits and brand rights for any company.”

Related News

news

Coronavirus - UK IPO, EPO and EU IPO extensions and support

A simple overview of the current status from IPOs. Last updated 16th March 2020. 

EPO announces extensions to deadlines due to COVID-19
news

EPO announces extensions to deadlines due to COVID-19

On Sunday 15 March 2020 the EPO published a notice advising it is invoking the provisions of Rule 134(2) EPC, and has extended all periods expiring on or after publication of the notice to 17 April 2020. This may be extended by the EPO upon publication of a further notice.

EUIPO extends all deadlines for Community Design and European Union Trade Marks
news

EUIPO extends all deadlines for Community Design and European Union Trade Marks

The Executive Director of the EUIPO has today (16 March 2020) issued a decision regarding extensions for all time limits on trade mark and design matters at the EUIPO. In accordance with the decision, all time limits expiring between 9 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 inclusive are extended until 1 May 2020.

news

UK IPO announces support for those affected by coronavirus

In brief, the UK IPO has indicated that it will use its discretionary powers (on a case-by-case basis) to extend time limits where possible under national and international law.

*Update* “EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)”
news

*Update* “EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)”

Earlier this year, we reported on the EPO Board of Appeal’s decision to uphold the revocation of the Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent (here). Now it appears that the Broad Institute is gearing up to put forward a petition for review by the Enlarged Board of Appeal as a last resort to save their patent.

news

The UPC is dead, long live the UPC!

European patent attorneys have been getting excited about the Unitary Patent (UP) and Unified Patent Court (UPC) for years, writing articles, and giving talks and presentations about the ins-and-outs and twists-and-turns of the whole thing. So what is the current situation? What has happened now?

news

EPO official fees to increase on 1 April 2020

The EPO adjusts its fees every two years. The EPO has now announced the next set of fee adjustments, which will come into effect on 1 April 2020. Full details of the fee increases are listed here and here. Overall, the EPO has implemented a general inflation-based 4% increase in official fees.

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo