Originally Posted by sir_eccles

You are both right. Hershey owns the tm and must defend it or risk losing it or having it become generic. The main test on tm infringement is usually two parts. Firstly is it the same product or field of business (with monster cables it usually isn't) then you ask whether there is likely to be confusion for the consumer.

The problem is these are not counterfeit goods neither are they imitators like store brand chocolates trying to imitate the look and feel. They are grey imports. There has been a lot of case law recently on such things. Right of first sale.

Originally Posted by ottotheboar

Never seen it at any of the British Goods shops. If you look on Google or Amazon is it shipped from the UK in glass jars which makes it expensive to ship.
I buy the 500 gram tins.
I have seen Gold Bend for sale but it was expensive.

Originally Posted by MsElui

what is so stupid is - people are not going to buy Hersheys crap now instead. I mean if you were prepared to fork over multi dollars for imports you are unlikely to say 'ok ill eat cheap earwaxy puke now instead'.

i buy the brit stuff to treat myself. I don't buy Hersheys for myself and will think it would NEVER be a treat to do so.

Originally Posted by Sue

I only found out about this today
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/ny...pond.html?_r=0

Like I'm going to buy that Hershey's rubbish anyway ....

All they are going to do is put some small businesses out of business.

Originally Posted by Orangepants

Can we still bring it in ourselves though?

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

It would seem that Hershey's has exclusive ownership of the US trademark, so yes, it does have a claim against anyone else who would sell products with the same or similar names in the US. Similar packaging also helps Hershey's case.

The legal solution would be for the importer to either (a) rebrand the products as something else or (b) cut a deal with Hershey's, i.e. pay Hershey's some money to license it. I can understand why that's annoying to a customer, but the issue for the trademark owner is pretty unambiguous.

Originally Posted by rallybug

I think that, probably, the big mistake was by Cadbury in the first place - the license to make the chocolate should've stipulated that the same recipe be used.

For example, Dairy Milk:

UK ingredients: Milk, sugar, cocoa butter, cocoa mass, vegetable fats (palm, shea), emulsifiers (E442, E476), flavourings.

US ingredients: MILK CHOCOLATE ( SUGAR; MILK; CHOCOLATE; COCOA BUTTER; LACTOSE; SOY LECITHIN; PGPR, EMULSIFIER; NATURAL & ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR)

(PGPR = E476)

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

any Brit would have been able to tell Cadbury's how disgusting Hershey's chocolate is.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

As has already been pointed out in this thread, at least part of the reformulation is because in the US the UK formulation would not be allowed to call itself chocolate. But I do wonder why Cadbury's signed such an open-ended deal with Hershey's when any Brit would have been able to tell Cadbury's how disgusting Hershey's chocolate is.