date:Oct 16, 2012
f use and advertising going back to 1914, as well as consumer and expert survey evidence.
Evidence not compelling enough
Nestl opposed this application, but the experienced hearing officer allowed it to proceed subject to some goods restriction for which he felt the evidence not compelling enough. The mark was allowed forChocolate in bar and tablet form; chocolate for eating; drinking chocolate; preparations for making drinking chocolate.
Nestl appealed. In the High Court the argument was run