Today is the 80th birthday of Michael Bond, creator of that marmalade sandwich-eating ursine superstar and all-round English/darkest Peruvian eccentric Paddington Bear.

The IPKat reckons that the following questions need to be answered for the piece of mind of IP lawyers everywhere:

*Is the recipe for Paddington Bear’s marmalade sandwiches protected as confidential information? Does their composition give right to an Art.8 claim under the Human Rights Act?

*During his lifetime, PB has had many facelifts (his official website lists 8). Would the use of any one of those images be sufficient to maintain the trade mark rights in all of the other images? A related question – does the use of an image of Paddington Bear wearing Wellington boots constitute use in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark when compared to Paddington without his wellies for the purposes of avoiding revocation?

*Is the mark PADDINGTON BEAR prima facie barred from registration since it (i) is descriptive of a bear who arrived or is from Paddington or (iii) includes a geographical term that other traders may need to use.
BEAR'S BIRTHDAY BEAR'S BIRTHDAY Reviewed by Unknown on Friday, January 13, 2006 Rating: 5


  1. PADDINGTON BEAR is already registered in the UK Trade Marks Registry in one class (28) and as a Community Trade mark in ten classes; both registrations are for the words alone.

  2. Indeed yes, but was the name inherently distinctive or was the distinctiveness acquired?

  3. There are other curious questions perhaps not quite so IP focussed but which may have IP implications, for example in terms of enabling disclosure. I have in mind particularly the question of how, following its removal from under the hat, the delectable comestibles stored for emergencies remained hair-free - as one must assume they did or there would have been some indication of distaste from its intended recipient - and presumed ultimate consumer.

    I think we should be told.

  4. "the piece of mind of IP lawyers everywhere". Are you suggesting that IP lawyers lack a complete mind?


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.