5 ms·

I'm split on this. I think that the standard that you have to prove that it's totally ubiquitous across all member states is ludicrous, but at the same time I t

I'm split on this. I think that the standard that you have to prove that it's totally ubiquitous across all member states is ludicrous, but at the same time I think it's insane that you can trademark a shape.

FPGAhacker 8y ago
"I think it's insane that you can trademark a shape." What exactly do you think a trademark is?
- jopsen 8y ago
  Isn't trademarks used to uniquely identify products as originating from as specific vendor. 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.
krapht 8y ago
Do you feel the same way about Toblerone?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  The funny-shaped chocolate thing? Sure, the same. Trademarking a shape is still ridiculous.
  - WilliamEdward 8y ago
    You actually kind of proved that trademarking shapes is important, by recognising "the funny-shaped chocolate". In your mind, you can identify what toblerone is based on shape alone. if another confectioner made an identically-shaped chocolate, you could buy it thinking it was toblerone and more than likely it would be worse than toblerone and ruin their reputation.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      As I mention here[0], you generally don't buy FMCG products without packaging. And packaging (which, by the way, usually conceals the special shape of the product) clearly tells me what I'm buying, without any chance for confusion. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17632652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17632652
      - WilliamEdward 8y ago
        Just because you rarely encounter unpackaged goods doesn't mean you shouldn't account for even the small amount of cases where you do. Someone could have a bowl full of kitkat-shaped chocolates in a bowl at a party which you could confuse for the real deal.
        Retric 8y ago
        Kit Kat prints their name on the bars so you really can’t. 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.
        balfirevic 8y ago
        > doesn't mean you shouldn't account for even the small amount of cases where you do 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.
WilliamEdward 8y ago
It's not insane, the point of trademarking shapes is so that customers can't look at something in a glance and confuse it for something else. In the case of kitkat, they simply couldn't prove in court that customers would recognise the shape so it didn't get a trademark.
- emilfihlman 8y ago
  It _is_ insane since it's a general shape. 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.

FPGAhacker 8y ago

"I think it's insane that you can trademark a shape." What exactly do you think a trademark is?

jopsen 8y ago
Isn't trademarks used to uniquely identify products as originating from as specific vendor. 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.

krapht 8y ago

Do you feel the same way about Toblerone?

TeMPOraL 8y ago
The funny-shaped chocolate thing? Sure, the same. Trademarking a shape is still ridiculous.
- WilliamEdward 8y ago
  You actually kind of proved that trademarking shapes is important, by recognising "the funny-shaped chocolate". In your mind, you can identify what toblerone is based on shape alone. if another confectioner made an identically-shaped chocolate, you could buy it thinking it was toblerone and more than likely it would be worse than toblerone and ruin their reputation.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    As I mention here[0], you generally don't buy FMCG products without packaging. And packaging (which, by the way, usually conceals the special shape of the product) clearly tells me what I'm buying, without any chance for confusion. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17632652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17632652
    - WilliamEdward 8y ago
      Just because you rarely encounter unpackaged goods doesn't mean you shouldn't account for even the small amount of cases where you do. Someone could have a bowl full of kitkat-shaped chocolates in a bowl at a party which you could confuse for the real deal.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Kit Kat prints their name on the bars so you really can’t. 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.
      - balfirevic 8y ago
        > doesn't mean you shouldn't account for even the small amount of cases where you do 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.

WilliamEdward 8y ago

It's not insane, the point of trademarking shapes is so that customers can't look at something in a glance and confuse it for something else. In the case of kitkat, they simply couldn't prove in court that customers would recognise the shape so it didn't get a trademark.

emilfihlman 8y ago
It _is_ insane since it's a general shape. 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.