Does Kit Kat’s Shape Deserve a Trademark? E.U. Adds a Hurdle
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
As long as I can remember Rowntree's Kit Kat existing, there have been supermarket and other brands producing similar style and shaped product. Rowntrees kept their sales by being the clearly superior product. Then Nestles bought them and started ruining it.
Nestle and Mondelez have cheapened and worsened their products since respective takeovers yet now want to preserve their dominance by regulation.
For trademarks, for me at least, that seems to center on preventing various harms resulting from consumer confusion, deliberate or otherwise. Indeed, merely "protecting established revenue streams" is explicitly not a reason I'd endorse.
In that context, I'm not sure the consumer is meaningfully confused or harmed by any possible (otherwise legal) use of the trapezoidal four-finger shape by a non-KitKat product. So I'd be inclined to say "no" to trademark protection for it.
Contrary opinions invited, particularly consumer harms I might be overlooking.
It's a perfect example of hacking without a computer. There is a whole series of these videos trying to recreate mass produced junk food in a test kitchen, and it's incredible how difficult it can be for even a very experienced chef. It makes you wonder how these products were ever created.
Should google be given the trademark for a search engine because almost everyone says "google it" (and yes, that is what you are arguing)?
The answer is no.
What exactly do you think a trademark is?
Hence, society prevents others from using your trademark inorder to protect customers from buying a counterfeit product while believing they're buying a legitimate product.
IMO, of the product is clearly labelled as something other than "KitKat", then customers are protected, no futher trademarks are needed.
As KitKats are usually traded in a labelled wrapping, I don't see the big issue. I doubts shops will start selling unwrapped KitKats, inorder to mix in counterfeit products.
--
Yes, it absolutely means that. We're not talking about some kind of inalienable right. Trademarking such a broad thing as candy shape is heavy-handed approach which should be out of question unless there is a chance for really massive amount of customer confusion (and even then, it's arguable).
BTW, in my country you can buy a chocolate that shares the shape with Toblerone. It has entirely different name and packaging and no one is ever confused.
They even use Kit Kat for other shapes meaning the Kit Kat brand is devorced from that shape.
PS: Have you ever seen people remove the bars at a party? That’s unsanitary.
This topic comes up a lot, though. It seems to be that most people in our little bubble think that intellectual property law is too vague, expansive, arbitrary, and violates common sense. At least the supreme court dealt a little bit of a blow to patent trolls, but the whole system needs to be reformed.
While it seems silly, they're distinct cues that indicate a specific brand, and having another company use them would cause customer confusion.
Also, how the hell are you supposed to recognize it when the shape is hidden by the packaging?
In Europe their priorities are...different.
In the US, design patents also can't cover functional elements.
> The Norwegian bar has been made since 1937, a mere two years after Kit Kat - originally called Rowntree's chocolate crisp - hit the market in 1935.
If I saw a chocolate product that had the same shape, I would immediately recognize it as Kit Kat. It is distinctive, worth protecting, and I don’t think Nestle is being overly greedy here.
It’s a functional not a pure asthetic choice putting it outside the realm of trademarks.