The Battle of the Bulls: NBA Fail to Invalidate Pizza Texas Bulls Trade Mark Similar to the Chicago Bulls Logo in the United Kingdom
The National Basketball Association (NBA) has lost the appeal of its invalidation action against a United Kingdom (UK) trade mark filed by Pizza Texas Bulls Inc (Pizza Bulls) in classes 30, 39, and 43 in NBA Properties Inc. v. Pizza Texas Bulls Inc [2023] EWHC 3040 (Ch). Interestingly, the NBA was successful in the European Union (EU) in relation to identical marks under Opposition No B3146352, and prevented the Pizza Bulls mark being registered in the EU.
Read MoreAussie Burger Wars Continue: KFC v. HFC
In KFC THC V Ltd v. Grill’d IP Pty Ltd [2023] ATMO 192, KFC THC V Ltd (KFC) brought an opposition against the registration of the trade mark “HFC” filed by Grill’d IP Pty Ltd (Grill’d). KFC is a global chain of fast food restaurants otherwise known as Kentucky Fried Chicken. Grill’d is an Australian chain of burger restaurants which markets its food as a healthier, fresher alternative to the major fast food chains. The trade mark “HFC,” standing for “Healthy Fried Chicken,” is used by Grill’d for the fried chicken options on its menu.
Read MoreA Thorny Issue Resolved as “Flowers For All” Trade Mark Deemed Distinctive
Business blooms for one trade mark owner as “FLOWERS FOR ALL” has been deemed distinctive enough to be registered as a trade mark in Australia.
Read MoreBurger Wars: The Big Beef Between McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s–McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412
In McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412, fast-food giant McDonald’s and Australian dinner-time rival Hungry Jack’s faced off in the Federal Court of Australia over their burger names BIG MAC vs BIG JACK and MEGA MAC vs MEGA JACK.
Read MoreJust Because the Court can, Doesn’t Mean it will: The Difficulty in Seeking to Avoid an Injunction Following a Finding of Copyright Infringement in the UK
As reported previously in our blog post here, earlier this year the High Court of England and Wales found in Lidl’s favour regarding allegations of trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement by Tesco. However, Tesco has suffered a further loss following a supplementary hearing focused on what the most appropriate form of relief was for copyright infringement (although it was agreed by the parties that Lidl was entitled to an injunction in light of findings of trade mark infringement and passing off).
Read MoreRegistering NFTs and Virtual Goods in the UK
As we learned to appreciate over the past year or so, virtual goods are intangible assets that can be traded within a virtual economy, worth whatever participants in the virtual market are willing to pay for them. Though a type of virtual good, NFTs have their own unique definition, which can now be found in the Cambridge Dictionary:
An NFT is a unique unit of data (the only one existing of its type) that links to a particular piece of digital art, music, video etc. and that can be bought and sold.
Read MoreHoney, I Lost the Trade Mark: MANUKA HONEY Declared not Exclusive to New Zealand
An attempt to trade mark the term MANUKA HONEY in New Zealand has come to a sticky end. Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks Natasha Alley found that the term MANUKA HONEY was descriptive of the goods it claimed and MHAS had “fallen short of establishing the necessary distinctiveness, both inherent and acquired”.1
Read MoreA Lidl Decision with big Implications – UK High Court Finds that Tesco’s Clubcard Logo Infringes Lidl’s logo
In a recent decision, the High Court of England and Wales has found that Tesco’s use of the yellow and blue Tesco Clubcard logos (reproduced below) infringed Lidl’s trade marks (see the relevant Lidl marks below) and also gave rise to copyright infringement and passing off.
Read MoreNothing more than Empty Words: The Difficulty with Registering Slogans as Trade Marks in the EU
Companies continue to face difficulties in achieving EU trade mark protection for their slogans. In separate recent decisions of the EU General Court, two trade mark applications relating to advertising slogans were rejected on the grounds that the marks lacked the ‘distinctive character’ required to be registerable under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. These two decisions join a long list of case law rejecting similar applications.
Read More