It’s difficult to go about trademarking shapes,Aconcept recently”highlighted by the Court of Appeal shooting down the London Taxi Company’s attempt to gain exclusive rights toits tweaked version ofA black cab.
The’shape wasn’t distinctive enough an issue pointed out by the competition as well. Arguing against the LTC was?Frazer-Nash Research, stating: “Passengers and Transport for London alike have certain perceptions as to how a licensed London cab ‘should look?.
“There is, effectively, a barrier to entry in the market for licensed cabs which are not recognisable as such i.e. if a vehicle does not look like a licensed cab, passengers are less likely to hail it. The cab leans?on the entire history of the sector and the British heritage of automotive designs.
It serves as an example of how impossible a task trademarking shapes really is if your logo and packaging are the draw for your customer base. Just ask KitKat.
Several attempts at trademarking its “four fingers” have ended in misery, with judgesclaiming that it?was only recognisable as the brand’s product due tothe logo inscribed on the chocolate.
Shapes that aren?t normalAre easier to put a stamp on it’s why even water company Voss failed to retain the rights for a ?perfect cylinder” bottle shape. Lego also couldn?t trademark its figures, where it previously succeeded with its bricks.
The court had found that the two rows part of the brick performed a technical function. The figures, on the other hand, held no real technical aspect they were merely intended to convey humans,An aspect many toys made use of.
“The black cab case is a good example of the difficulties faced by applicants for trademarking shapes,” said Peter Nunn, legal director and head of the automotive group at Mishcon de Reya. “The types of features LTC relied upon (such as the round headlamps, a deep/high bonnet etc.) did not depart sufficiently from the basic design features of a car they were merely a variant on them.
“That might not have been the end of the story if LTC had been able to show that the shape had acquired distinctiveness. However, following its decision earlier this year in relation to the shape of the KitKat bar, the Court of Appeal decided LTC had not done enough to educate consumers that there is only one manufacturer of taxis of that shape.
“The decision does give some hope that?unique design might be sufficient for ‘inherent’ distinctiveness.”