A cat in the public gallery has notified the IPKat of the outcome of today's Court of Appeal decision on Philips v Remington:
  • The Court of Appeal upheld Rimer J's judgment on the 452 mark, finding in Remington's favour. The clover leaf element was a mere embellishment and not an essential feature of the shape. This left the original "three head" mark which was function and hence barred from registration under s.3(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

  • The Court of Appeal found in Philips' favour on the registrability of the device marks (pictures of three headed shavers). These were abstract and non-technical pictures. As such, they did not constitute the shape of the goods and so did not fall within s.3(2).
  • The Court of Appeal did not need to consider whether there was public recognition of the shape mark since. Public recognition was relevant to acquired distinctiveness, but not to the prior question of functionality under s.3(2).
The IPKat thinks that this all sounds very sensible. He looks forward to bringing you more detailed analysis in due course.
    PHILIPS v REMINGTON -- THE RESULT PHILIPS v REMINGTON -- THE RESULT Reviewed by Unknown on Thursday, January 26, 2006 Rating: 5

    1 comment:

    1. The judgment is now available in full on BAILII:


    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.