#White lightning cider registration

WS Foster & Son Limited v Brooks Brothers UK Limited EWPCC 18 - where 48 years of inactivity was too long for old boot brand.Maslyukov v Diageo Distilling Ltd RPC 21 - where goodwill remained in names of old whiskies where distilleries had ceased to exist, but there were new bottlings and vintages were being traded.Sutherland v V2 Music Limited EMLR 28 - where band that had modest success and 6 years inactivity retained goodwill.Ad-Lib Club v Granville FSR 1 - where gap of 4/5 years in trading of very successful and known club (where openly discussed in press that was looking for new premises) meant still had goodwill.Minimax GmbH & Co KG v Chubb Fire Limited EWHC 1960 (Pat) - where refilling of fire extinguishers not enough of itself to show goodwill retained.As argued by the applicant's lawyers (ie Wood IP), the bad faith case relied very heavily on the residual goodwill case. If there was no goodwill, there was nothing to take advantage of.īoth cases considered broadly speaking the same cases - the most useful cases (referred to in both cases) are: The Hearing Officer also rejected Asprey's argument that the application was in bad faith (on the basis that the applicant clearly intended to play off the heritage in the historic J W BENSON business). Although some collectors bought and sold antique J W BENSON watches, that was not enough to prove residual goodwill, and it could not be inferred from the fact that someone wanted to revive it. Rejecting Asprey's opposition based on residual goodwill, the Hearing Officer concluded that the evidence simply was not enough to show residual goodwill. In the 1990s Asprey had refashioned some old watch movements it had in inventory into a limited edition release (found to be of 400 watches), and Asprey claimed to still use the mark in relation to repair services and that it had for some time in the interim used the mark for wholesaling of watches. The brand had been very widespread up to the first World War, had been popular up to the bombing of the factory during the Second World War, and the brand had continued until the 1970s. In J W BENSON (read here), the applicant sought to revive an expired trade mark for J W BENSON, which is the name of an old watch brand. The Hearing Officer concluded, however, that the case was close to the borderline. The UKIPO upheld the opposition on the basis of residual goodwill: although the evidence of turnover and volume was not perfect, and although there was use on some dubious sources (Wikepedia and the Urban Dictionary), the overall picture painted was coherent and there was clear goodwill (even if it was not entirely positive) as at the time of the application. This was rejected, and so BULMER'S were left to go on residual goodwill. As is the way, the applicant demanded that Bulmers prove use of the registered trade marks, and Bulmers argued that it had a legitimate reason for non-use, namely the move away from high-strength-low-cost cider. It opposed this new application on the basis of its unused marks and a claim to residual goodwill in the WHITE LIGHTNING mark. It was one of the best known brands of cider in the UK between the 1990s and 2010, when it was delisted because the owner of the brand wanted to move away from the cultural problems with high strength cider and focus on the premium cider market represented by its BULMER'S brand.

it was a very cheap white cider chosen more for value than taste, and was the drink of choice for underage drinkers (erm. If people in the UK remember WHITE LIGHTNING fondly then they probably didn't drink it.

#White lightning cider registration

In the first case (read here), the owners of the WHITE LIGHTNING cider brand opposed the registration of WHITE LIGHTNING by the descendent of the owner of the company that originally made WHITE LIGHTNING (before it was acquired). Wood IP acted for the applicant in J W BENSON, so take what we say on that case carefully: as it's still in the appeal period we can't say too much, and in any event you might think we are puffing ourselves up a bit. The answer put forward by these cases is. With a number of brands undergoing 'revivals' - not always at the hands of the original brand owner - the question is whether the original brand owner has a basis to challenge it. It's fortunate when you get two decisions on the same issue in quick succession.