This document discusses a trademark infringement case between Cadbury and Nestle regarding Cadbury's use of the color purple on its chocolate packaging. The court ultimately ruled that while Cadbury's use of purple was distinctive enough to be a registered trademark for its milk chocolate products, it was not for all of its other chocolate products. The case highlights the challenges of trademarking colors and the importance of clear brand identity.

1. TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE
Submitted To: Submitted By:
Dr. Vinita Mohindra Tanupriya Patel
222111515

2. Trademarks: A trademark is a type of intellectual property
consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that
identifies products or services from a particular source and
distinguishes them from others.
Important Terms
Trademark infringement: It refers to violation of the exclusive
rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark
owner or any licensees.

3. Importance of protecting trademarks
 Exclusive rights: Registration provides exclusive rights to the owner to
prevent third parties from marketing identical products under an identical or
confusingly similar trademark.
 Enforcement: Registered trademarks are easier to enforce as they usually
carry a presumption of ownership.
 Trademarks can be sold or licensed: It provides a potential source of
income for the rights owner.
 Financial value: A registered trademark can be used to obtain funding
from financial institutions.

4. Brief History of Cadbury
 Established in 1824 as a little grocery store in Birmingham, England.
 Began making cocoa and sipping chocolate in 1831, expanded in 1861 to incorporate
chocolate bars.
 Early in the 20th century, they gained notoriety for their creative marketing strategies.
 Supplied ration boxes during World War II and provided chocolate to British troops
during World War I.
 The company is one of the most well-known confectionery companies in the world
today and is known for its extensive line of chocolate goods.

5. The
Cadbury’s
Logo
Evolution

6. Brief History of Nestle
 It was founded in 1866 in Switzerland by Henri Nestle.
 The company's first product was an infant food.
 In 19th century, Nestle expanded its product range to include condensed milk and
other dairy products.
 In the early 20th century, Nestle started to expand globally.
 During World War II, Nestle supplied the Allies with food and other products.
 In 1974, Nestle became the world's largest food company.
 Today, Nestle is a multinational food and beverage company that produces a
wide range of products, including chocolate, coffee, cereals, bottled water, and
pet food.

7. The Nestlé
Logo
Evolution

8. The dispute between Cadbury and Nestle
 The dispute over Cadbury's purple packaging and Nestle's claim of infringement
revolves around a specific shade of purple known as Pantone 2865c.
 Cadbury, has used this shade of purple on its chocolate packaging for over a
century, and in 2004, it registered the color as a trademark for its chocolate
products.
 In 2008, Nestle, filed a complaint with the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO)
challenging Cadbury's trademark registration, arguing that the color was not
distinctive enough to be registered as a trademark.
 The judge ruled in favor of Nestle.
 Cadbury appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, which also ruled in favor
of Nestle.

9.  The court ruled that Cadbury's use of the color purple on its chocolate
packaging was distinctive enough to be registered as a trademark for some of
its products, but not for all of them.
 The trademark registration would only apply to the packaging of Cadbury's
milk chocolate products and not to its chocolate bars, chocolate assortments,
or drinking chocolate.
 The dispute over Cadbury's purple packaging and Nestle's claim of
infringement highlights the challenges of trademarking colors and the
importance of having a clear and distinct brand identity.

10. Cadbury’s shade of purple – Pantone 2865c Nestle’s Trademarked shade of purple

11. Cadbury’s Arguments
 Cadbury argued that their use of the specific shade of purple on their
packaging was distinct from Nestle’s trademarked shade.
 They also argued that Nestle's trademark registration for the purple shade was
not specific enough and should not have been granted in the first place.
 Cadbury claimed that Nestle was attempting to monopolize the use of a
common color.

12. Nestle’s Arguments
 Nestle argued that Cadbury's use of the purple shade on its packaging was
infringing on their existing trademark registration.
 They claimed that the purple color was a crucial part of their brand identity
and that Cadbury's use of a similar shade would cause confusion among
consumers.
 Nestle also argued that their trademark registration was specific enough and
had been granted after a rigorous review process.

13. Court’s Judgement
 The case was heard by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which initially granted
Cadbury's application to register the trademark. However, Nestle appealed the decision, and
the case eventually made its way to the Court of Appeal.
 The court reasoned that the evidence presented by Cadbury showed that the color purple had
been used consistently on its milk chocolate packaging for a period of over 90 years, and that
consumers had come to associate the color with Cadbury's milk chocolate specifically.
 However, the court also noted that the evidence did not show that the color purple had
acquired distinctiveness for Cadbury's other chocolate products.
 The court reasoned that while Cadbury had used the color purple on some of its other
products, such as its chocolate assortments, it had not been used consistently enough to
establish a strong association between the color and those products.

14. Significance of the court's decision for other
companies
 The case highlighted the importance of protecting and registering trademarks.
 The case demonstrated the limitations of trademark protection.This means that
companies need to ensure that their trademarks are truly unique and easily
distinguishable from other marks.
 The case highlighted the importance of conducting thorough trademark
searches before adopting and using a trademark.