WD-40 which loosens Tight pants?
Recently, I`ve been researching information about a local Bristol vodka “NK-75”, probably on sale and produced by BristolDryGin (but it’s not certain). It’s not clear what the abbreviation “NK” means, but 75 is a direct indication of the alcoholic content. And everything would be fine, but the bottle design is particularly recognisable. And don’t say that you don’t recognize this design. Even I, a girl, used to use this miracle product 
. It is a nearly identical duplication of the trademark design of WD 40.
WD-40 Company, Inc. invests in the protection of its intellectual property rights. So, I was surprised that a local distillery has been copying the WD-40 can`s trade mark design.
But let’s look closer. Have the trademark rights of the WD-40 Company, Inc. been infringed?
To begin with, any trademark is registered in the relevant classes of the Nice Classification of Goods and Services.
For example, the WD-40 Company and its affiliates own more than 400 trademarks around the world (due to the TM View database). The first applications were filed back in the 1900’s. Moreover, the name WD-40 is directly related to the development of the product. According to the official website, it took 40 attempts to get the water displacing formula. Hence the name WD-40.
All trademarks are mainly registered for paints and lubricants. But the copied design NK-75 bottle is in a completely different class – alcoholic drinks.
The names of WD-40 and NK-75 are obviously different. However, the semicircular shape of the bottle on the yellow background is similar. And the general appearance of the NK-75 bottle is completely copied from the WD-40 can. This similarity gives the impression that the two products belong to the WD-40 company.
What steps can be taken to protect the WD-40 trademark in this case?
For example, you can refer to the article on the protection of well-known brands of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994, which has recently been amended.
Pursuant to Section 56(2) of the Act, the owner of a trademark may be able to claim damage to the brand’s value in terms of its reputation. In this case, the similar trademark must be used in bad faith, without proper grounds and harm the distinctiveness and reputation of the well-known trademark. In such circumstances, the goods for which both trademarks are used do not necessarily have to be the same.
In my opinion, the damage to the reputation of WD-40 is obvious. If you read the labels on both products carefully:
WD-40 can label
Stops Squeaks
Drives Out Moisture
Cleans and Protects
Loosens Rusted Parts
Frees Sticky Mechanisms
NK-75 bottle label
Stops Weeps
lubricates morning Meeting)
Dissolves Shame
Loosens Tight pants
Causes Sticky Messes
Maybe I’m being a bit contentious, but the inscriptions on the NK-75 bottle are clearly of a sexual nature related to the effects of alcohol. Considering that WD-40 constantly allocates funds to support children’s charities. Copying the look and feel of vodka products with ambiguous inscriptions could really damage the WD 40’s company reputation.
However, in order to apply the well-known trademark provision, WD-40 needs to prove its reputation. Although, it seems that this should not be a problem.
The most likely counter-argument of the producers of NK-75 vodka may be to point to parody. But, in my opinion, it is impossible to apply the parody exception, since the brand’s reputation has been damaged. The copying of the plate is for commercial purposes, and the copying itself does not correlate with the concept of “parody”.
By the way, a similar case has recently gone to court in the United States. Jack Daniel’s filed a lawsuit against a dog toy company for trademark infringement. The toy manufacturer claims that this is a parody. The toy bears the inscriptions “43% POO BY VOL” and “100% SMELLY”. At the same time, Jack Daniel’s lawyers noted that they do not want whiskey to be associated with dog excrement.
No responses yet