We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
IF YOU FANCIED trying to sell some chocolate in the United Kingdom using this particular shade of purple, think again.
The High Court in London has rejected an appeal by Nestlé trying to stop Cadbury from reserving the colour as a corporate trademark when it comes to advertising its chocolate bars and drinks.
DesignWeek.co.uk summarises that Cadbury had won a trademark ruling last December, but Nestlé had appealed the ruling – perhaps mindful of its own range of chocolate products, including Quality Street, which use purple packaging.
The High Court said, however, that Cadbury had used the colouring distinctively for almost a century – and that it could keep the trademark reserving the colour for itself.
The London Independent quoted Judge Colin Burss as ruling: “The evidence clearly supports a finding that purple is distinctive of Cadbury for milk chocolate.”
The trademark applies only to chocolate bars and drinks, meaning the particular tint – Pantone 2685C – can be used in the sale of other products.
Excellent news. Once implemented, we will be able to work until we’re 94!!
‘A DRUG THAT has been found to significantly reduce the lifespan of mice may point to the possibility of its potential use in humans, ‘ – think I’ll stick with the cans to do that, thanks
@orb7eckn: you’ve had too many cans already Joe.
@James Leahy: No, the amusing error was originally in the article.
Who tf wants to live longer.. Stop the madness…
@Maire Hicks: Who tf doesn’t want to reduce the risk of old age health issues?
@Mick Duvanny: why tf can some people not accept that when it’s your time, it’s your time and stop messing with nature.
@Maire Hicks: Time was the average lifespan was only thirty years. I’m more than twice that and in good health, I’m looking forward to as much life as I can get.
Where’s the fun in being dead?
@Maire Hicks: I dunno, maybe people who enjoy life and want to have as much time with their family and friends as possible? Maybe all of the people who don’t get to reach old age would have liked the option? It’s ok Maire, even if this becomes a viable and safe option no one’s going to force you to live longer if you’re miserable.
@Maire Hicks: When it comes to reducing cancer, we will improve on nature. No one deserves that. We’re all getting older anyway. Why shouldn’t people have healthier, more independent lives?
@Maire Hicks: We are nature
@Maire Hicks: wearing clothes
Using a toilet,brushing your teeth,showering,,having a operation to save your life.None of these things are ‘natural’ you are ‘messing’ with nature every day of your comfortable modern life.Nature would kill you for getting an infection,nature wants you to breed when your 12 years old because in nature you’d be dead by 35 years old before we started ‘messing with it’
Eh, no thanks
There can be only one.. …
You can be sure that this will be for the rich and friends only !
Pay the premium or we stop providing kinda
@Dominic Leleu: like insulin started out?
Green mile comes to mind mouse an all.
Apparently the world can’t feed it’s population as it is.
@Pat Barry: plenty of food, just too much of it is wasted.
@Pat Barry: Thats just capitalism.
Great opportunity for all the whingers to vote more!
Mouse-Man Origins.
Only extends the life of mice if they’re tempted by the cheese in the trap,
have your say