If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Sorry Cadbury but I think god owns your name.

As if that’s not enough… I wonder how old Cadbury chocolates actually are? I personally don’t think they were around in the 15th century. Due to this fact maybe Cadbury should be forced to change their name.

But before I jump into the details, let me say this…

QUOTED from Wikipedia.
Cadbury is a village in Devon, England. Cadbury Castle is nearby. The 15th century church features a Norman font.

Here’s something you probably don’t know about…

You may know how I feel about the above example & that unless for example it is a specific logo or colour eg: VIA-choc 123, a purple choc colour, such as we made in a dye then only this should be protected. Of course allowing for variances in shade and depth also various forms of media such as cloth or paper.

Because, believe it or not.  When you think about it fonts (see above) & colours are after all everywhere and unless you actually create the colour the exact same way, I feel as with copyrights or patents it cannot or should not really be trademarked.

But here’s something interesting: A novel way to approach this solution. How about letting the public decide by interactive voting on independent website such as nine MSN or yahoo, over say a 3 month period. Using this method rather than just a handful of people will have a better outcome for all parties concerned. Also it would free up the court system a bit more.

But don’t take my word for it… However I agree with Justice Heerey who said chocolate eaters were discerning enough to tell their Cadbury’s from their Darrell Lea.

Let me show you how dead serious I am… For more detail on my thoughts relating to this matter check out a previous article I wrote on a similar subject to this my rant on Trademarks. I feel in reality it is a free world to do what you choose as long as it is not illegal or immoral.

QUOTED from Yahoo news.
Cadbury loses fight for colour purple on Friday April 11, 04:03 PM

The colour purple has never caused so much fuss - but the battle between two chocolate manufacturers may still not be over.

In a long-running dispute going back more than five years, Cadbury had objected to Darrell Lea’s use of various shades of purple in its store signage, uniforms and product.

By now, you probably have some unanswered questions… So go  read the rest of the article

QUOTED from search results.
All brands and logos/images accompanied by ® or ™, and the colour purple are Cadbury Group trade marks in Australia.

My rant about trademarks is based on the fact that many of these words and phrases are just plain everyday old sayings that potentially have been around for hundreds of years. Please bear in mind I am all for copyright and that sort of protection but average phrases & words used in everyday life should in my opinion not be allowed as trademarks.

Take MacDonalds for instance and the I’m lovin it slogan, they claim it is protected by copyright or whatever. BUT I remember writing this about 15-20 years ago. NOW if I can find where I wrote that they may have to pay me royalties. AND though I may not be the first to have said it try using it now and you may get hit by the big red clown’s legal team.

Much of the problems that I see comes from the theory of the lion and the mouse or BIG vs LITTLE. Most of these new fan dangled companies, & even some older ones just think they are it and can push anyone around with all the money they have bilked out of us good folk.

A final note on My rant about trademarks
Just try to imagine how many companies have used your sayings and think how much money they could owe you. On the other hand everyone would be taking legal action against everyone everyday if it was worth it.

Quoted from today’s email

Trademark Keyword Issue Far From Settled.
Kentucky court to weigh in eventually

We can only expect this issue to be brought before the courts more and more, which might mean it is eventually decided by much higher courts: Does targeting your competitor’s trademark keyword in search ads constitute "use in commerce," and thus a trademark violation.

The issue has come up time and time again from some high-profile companies in various states and in various courts. Most of the time, the courts have answered with bidding on a competitor’s keyword does not violate trademark laws and is not considered "use in commerce." But a few other times, the courts have decided differently.