Supreme. A monopoly too far when it comes to pet food
Written by Michael Coyle on 07 March 2015« Return to Reading Room
HHJ Arnold put it thus :-In this case the Claimant ("Supreme Petfoods") seeks in essence to monopolise use of the word SUPREME as a trade mark for animal food. The Defendant ("Henry Bell") denies that Supreme Petfoods is entitled to such a monopoly, and in the alternative denies that it has invaded any monopoly to which Supreme Petfoods may be entitled. It ought to be possible for such a dispute to be resolved without great legal difficulty or expense. Such is the current state of European trade mark law, however, that instead it has thrown up a considerable number of legal and factual issues, although the number was reduced as a result of sensible concessions made by both sides during closing submissions. As a result, I fear that the costs will have been out of all proportion to what is at stake."
So even though you do have a trade mark its not bullet proof and can be attacked as in this instance where HHJ Arnold's decision highlights the problems with enforcing descriptive trade marks.
Want to speak
Complete the form below and we’ll call you back free of charge.