13.02.2025
Ahead of the Packaging Innovations & Empack exhibition, Nathaniel Taylor takes a look at the forms of Intellectual Property (IP) typically arising in the packaging industry and the boundaries between the different forms of protection that might be available.
In the packaging industry, companies typically seek various forms of IP protection for packaging innovations, including patents, registered designs, and trademarks.
Thank you
Patents protect new and inventive technical solutions, such as innovative packaging materials, adhesive compounds, methods of manufacturing, or unique functional features of a packaging product.
Patent protection is typically sought for its robust technical protection and the availability of tax relief schemes (such as Patent Box) relating to patented inventions.
For example, the Patent Box scheme allows companies to elect to apply a significantly lower rate of corporation tax (reduced to 10%) on profits attributable to qualifying patents.
In relation to packaging, the attributable profits may include the contribution of patented packaging to the sale value of the product and may even extend to the entire sale value of the product, e.g. where the packaging performs a function that is essential to allowing its contents to be used in the intended manner (e.g. in the case of an aerosol or inhaler). This can amount to significant savings.
However, patent protection is generally considered to be more difficult and expensive to obtain, when compared to other IP rights.
Moreover, patent protection is not available for purely subjective features, such as aesthetic aspects of a packaging, that might serve to distinguish the product from the competition.
Registered designs are more commonly sought in relation to packaging, protecting 2D and 3D features that have an aesthetic purpose.
For example, designs may typically be registered to protect features that serve to make the packaging visually appealing and distinctive, such as distinctive shapes, colours, and patterns.
Additionally, features of a design that are solely dictated by the technical function of the packaging cannot be protected by a registered design. So if the shape or appearance of a feature is a necessity for the packaging to function as intended, the feature cannot be protected by a registered design.
Trademarks protect brand identity, including brand logos and names, that may typically be applied to packaging to help businesses distinguish their products from competitors and build brand recognition among consumers.
In the packaging industry, it is quite common for trademarks to also be sought for the shape or three-dimensional appearance of packaging that consumers associate with the brand (so called ‘shape marks’). A famous example of this is the Coca-Cola bottle shape.
Trademarks cannot be registered for technical or functional features of packaging. However, the functional exclusion is considered with respect to how consumers perceive the shape to function. So shapes that only provide a technical advantage during a manufacturing stage, for example, may still be protected by a registered trademark. This points to the idea of complementary coverage.
Complementary coverage relates to the possibility of registering multiple forms of IP protection for a packaging innovation, for example to maximise the strength, value, and/or term of protection.
For example, Tetra Laval recently defended a 3D trademark for the shape of their Tetra Brik carton package, for which protection was further sought via patent applications. In this instance, the patent applications were directed to the technical features of the package providing an increased ratio of internal volume to surface area, which served to reduce material costs during manufacture. The 3D trademark protected the resulting shape of the carton package that generated brand recognition, providing overlapping protection. Here it was considered that the trademark did not fall into the technical exclusion in view of the technical function being confined to the manufacturing side, and having no effect on how the consumer (in this case professional intermediaries in the foodstuffs industry) considered the packaging to function.
For businesses in the packaging industry, this presents both challenges and opportunities. Our teams of trademark, patent and design attorneys are able to advise clients on the potential benefits of a shape mark in addition to patents and registered designs.
04.11.2024
T 56/21 – A missed opportunity for providing legal certainty on adapting the description at the EPOIt is typically a requirement at the EPO to amend the description for conformity with the allowable claims before grant of a patent; however, there have been a number of diverging decisions on the matter. The latest decision finds that there is no legal basis for enforcing this requirement, which might suggest that it will no longer be necessary to adapt the description. However, there are other decisions which support the requirement to adapt the description. In view of this, and because the Board of Appeal in this case opted not to involve the highest authority at the EPO in order to clarify the situation, it is unclear as to whether or not the requirement to adapt the description will remain.
13.01.2025
Protecting IP in agricultureProtecting IP is crucial as agriculture develops innovative techniques and technologies that improve productivity, sustainability, and resilience and move farming to net zero. Here is everything you need to know about patents in agriculture and farming.
Thank you