Four of the strangest trademark cases of all time


Trademark battles can be complicated, confusing, and sometimes downright bizarre. Here is our look at  four of the strangest cases of all time.


Louis Vuitton Vs Louis Vuiton Dak


This is probably the first time luxury handbags and fried chicken have featured mentioned in the same case. LV decided to sue the fried chicken restaurant located in South Korea, which had named itself ‘Louis Vuiton Dak’, a play on the Korean word ‘Tongdak’ which means ‘whole chicken’. Unfortunately for the owner, he hadn’t done himself any favours by also creating a logo that looked suspiciously similar to the LV logo. In the end, restaurant owner was fined $12,500!


KFC Vs a country club in Yorkshire


Tracy Daly is the owner of a country club in Yorkshire Dales. As part of her Christmas Day menu, she advertised an item called the ‘Family Feast’. The problem was that the same slogan is used by KFC for a decidedly non seasonal meal of fried chicken and chips, plus a fizzy drink. KFC contacted Ms. Daly, asking her to remove the title, on the grounds it was a serious trademark infringement. KFC has since confirmed they won’t be taking the case any further, since there is little resemblance between the two menus.


Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Cadbury UK Limited



The loss of Cadbury’s battle against its rival Nestle is probably one of the most famous trademark- infringement cases of all time. Cadbury had attempted to register a trademark for the use of a specific shade of the colour purple. Lawyers from Nestlé finally managed to overturn the judgement in October 2014. The judge decided the application lacked clarity, to the delight of Nestlé and anyone else who was especially fond of magenta.


Wal-Mart Vs Converse


The Converse trademark-infringement story started with the company filing a suit against 30 companies including Walmart, Kmart, Sketchers, Fila, Also, and Ralph Lauren. While most of the brands decided to settle, Wal-Mart has decided to fight back, claiming that what converse claim to own is for aesthetic functions only and can’t be subject to a trademark protection. Walmart won the battle. The judge stated that parts of the Converse style can’t be protected. As long as they don’t have the diamond sole, companies can import and sell shoes that look similar.

Popular posts from this blog

Is AI powered IP closer than we thought?

Big law and the strategic importance of trademark work