Skip to main content

KitKat bars are seen in London on July 25, 2018.

HANNAH MCKAY/Reuters

KitKat is not getting its break.

The maker of the chocolate bar has for 16 years tried to trademark its four-finger shape, arguing it is a distinctive feature that deserves protection. Like Toblerone’s pyramid blocks, which are trademarked.

But a European court ruled Wednesday against KitKat and its maker, Nestle, saying that its shape is not recognized throughout the 28 countries of the European Union.

Story continues below advertisement

The court instead sided with the makers of Kvikk Lunsj, a Norwegian snack that is a long-time favourite of hikers and skiers – and is shaped almost exactly like a KitKat.

The decision will allow Mondelez, the maker of Kvikk Lunsj, to market and sell the chocolate bar more widely throughout the bloc.

The court is the latest battleground in the feud between the chocolate bars, which began when the company Freia first introduced the Kvikk Lunsj – which literally translates to “Quick Lunch” – to Norwegians in 1937, two years after KitKat hit U.K shelves.

Their battle intensified in 2006 when Nestle secured a trademark for KitKat’s shape, only to be challenged by Kvikk Lunsj maker Cadbury, now owned by Mondolez.

In 2016, Nestle was stripped of the trademark since the shape of the treat was not considered recognizable throughout the EU.

The manufacturer appealed the decision in the bloc’s highest court, which today ruled that though the shape was viewed as distinctively KitKat in Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden, and the U.K., consumers in Belgium, Ireland, Greece and Portugal did not recognize it. Norway is not part of the EU, but adopts many of the bloc’s rules.

It is not the first time a chocolate maker doesn’t get a trademark. Switzerland’s Lindt & Spruengli wanted to protect the shape of its chocolate Easter rabbits covered in gold foil, with a red ribbon. But its case was also thrown out, in 2012, for similar reasons.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter