Protecting brands

Protecting brands header image 4

Harry Potter – hands off! Generic wizards – OK.

December 8th, 2009 · No Comments · Copyright, Trade marks

The organiser of themed dinner parties has been warned by Warner Bros against holding a Harry Potter party on Halloween.
Warner Bros pulled out the trade mark and copyright guns and alleged infringement.
This reminds me of the time Disney told a kindergarten they weren’t allowed to have a Disney themed concert.
Can the studios prevent themed parties?
Not [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:······

Could Richard Branson lose control of V Australia brand?

November 23rd, 2009 · No Comments · Trade marks

The trade marks register can sometimes reveal corporate infighting that would otherwise be kept quiet.
It shows that Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Enterprises is opposing trade mark applications for V Australia by a company associated with locally owned airline Virgin Blue. Huh? Virgin is opposing itself?
Normally, Virgin Enterprises owns all Virgin trade marks (Virgin Mobile, Virgin [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:·····

Should anyone be able to own ‘Mischa’?

November 9th, 2009 · No Comments · Trade marks

Mischa Barton has done the creative celeb thing and is selling a range of handbags with her own brand.
All well and good, except that when she tried to register a trade mark in Australia for her name, her signature and her logo, she ran into an opposition from Australian company Mischa Accessories, which distributes handbags.
Likelihood [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:····

Caussie v Cozi by Jennifer Hawkins

October 13th, 2009 · No Comments · Trade marks

Trade mark applications for Jennifer Hawkins‘ swimwear brand have been opposed by local label Caussie.
Caussie sells men’s swimwear primarily on ebay.
While it looks like a David and Goliath battle, with Jennifer’s products being backed by retail giant Myer, it will probably all come down to whether Caussie and Cozi by Jennifer Hawkins are too similar.
Caussie [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:····

What are Apple Inc’s rights?

October 7th, 2009 · No Comments · Trade marks

You may have seen the recent newspaper story about Apple Inc opposing the new Woolworths logo (pictured).
Currently Apple has 13 trade mark oppositions on foot in Australia.
Some of these look like obvious attempts to hop onto Apple’s iPod and iPhone bandwagon. Even before the trainwreck of iSnack 2.0 (which thankfully Kraft have decided to change).
There’s the [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:······

iSnack 2.0 = iamnotconvinced

September 29th, 2009 · No Comments · Trade marks

Kraft, the manufacturers of Vegemite, held a competition to name a new, more spreadable version.
After receiving 48,000 suggestions, they chose iSnack 2.0.
I’m not sure that’s a great idea, because Breville already own isnack as a trade mark for snack makers and sandwich toasters (although they’re not currently using it). It doesn’t necessarily stop Kraft from [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:···

When a Pink Lady apple isn’t a Pink Lady apple

September 1st, 2009 · No Comments · Trade marks

The Age reports that a 100 tonne shipment of apples has been stopped on its way to Europe because the Brazilian grower didn’t obtain a propogation licence and pay for appropriate rights. The West Australian Agriculture Department owns the Cripps Pink variety and Apple and Pear Australia Limited controls use of the premium Pink Lady [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:········

Katy Perry v Katie Perry – the Australian wins

August 11th, 2009 · No Comments · Trade marks

Katie Perry is an Australian fashion designer, specialising in jersey dresses. She applied for an Australian trade mark last year but found that her application was opposed by US pop singer Katy Perry, famous for her teenage experimentation song “I kissed a girl”.
Lawyers acting for the US singer also sent a cease-and-desist letter, alleging that [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:···

No means yes – Dr. No loses

July 21st, 2009 · No Comments · Trade marks

German media company, Mission Productions, tried to register “Dr. No” as a trade mark in 2001.
No way, said Danjaq LLC, managers of the James Bond film franchise rights – including the rights to the 1962 film starring Sean Connery – which opposed the application. They said that Mission Productions’ use of Dr. No on products [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:·····

Mars fails to protect Bounty Bar shape

July 14th, 2009 · No Comments · Trade marks

A European Court has thrown out Mars Inc’s trade mark application for the shape of its Bounty chocolate bar.
The shape of the bar is unique, argued Mars, particularly the rounded ends. As well as the triple chevron shape resulting from dripping chocolate on the final bar.
No, said the European Court of First Instance. The shape [...]

[Read more →]

Tags:····