The showdown pitted two chocolate bunnies against each other, with only one being able to survive.
In one corner, a chocolate bunny wrapped in gold leaf from the German discount store Lidl was displayed. In the other corner was a chocolate bunny, also wrapped in gold leaf, but made by venerable Swiss chocolatiers Lindt and Sprüngli.
After years of legal battles, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court sided with Lindt, ruling that Lidl’s chocolate bunnies could be confused with Lindt’s chocolate bunnies, which are protected under Swiss trademark law. did.
As a result, the court ruled that Lidl could no longer sell rabbits in Switzerland and had to “destroy” the chocolate rabbits it still had in stock. statement from court.
The verdict was a victory for the Lindt confectioner in a country internationally known for its fine chocolate. Questions arose as to whether Lidl’s Banned Bunny would melt into a less offensive form.
The court’s statement appeared to suggest that the rabbit could be melted down and reused, and Lidl had to destroy the rabbit, but “this does not necessarily mean that the chocolate itself must be destroyed. ‘ said.
In a statement, Lidl said there is no need to ditch the bunny.
“Since the chocolate bunny in question is a seasonal product, there is currently no stock in Switzerland that needs to be disposed of,” Riddle said in a statement.
Lidl’s attorney, Christoph Gasser, said the Supreme Court had remanded the case to a lower court for further review, specifically to assess whether Lindt was entitled to monetary compensation.
“In essence, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court seems to have adopted a results-oriented approach in its legal reasoning, in an effort to protect the Linz Easter Bunny, despite some significant deviations from previous case law. “We accept the judgment of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, but feel that it has harmed Swiss intellectual property law.”
Linz applauded the ruling and said it would protect the “Gold Bunny” he had been making since 1952.
“The Federal Court’s ruling is of great importance to the protection of the Lindt Gold Bunny on the Swiss market,” the company said in a statement. “This will help further protect the iconic shape of the Lindt Gold Bunny from being diluted by unauthorized copies and may set a precedent in other jurisdictions.”
Jonathan Drucker, former general counsel for Belgian chocolate maker Godiva, called Lindt “the 800-pound gorilla of the chocolate industry.”
At Godiva, “We’ve always been very aware of what their Chocolate Bunnies look like and what kind of protection they have.
“Lindt is very aggressive when it comes to trying to stop other competitors from infringing on their trademarks and products. I stuck to it,” he said.
Lindt calls its chocolate bunny “one of the most famous Lindt chocolate products” and “an iconic Easter fixture.”
“Today, there are over 160 million Lindt Gold Bunnies flying around the world each year. its websiteA line-up of all Lindt’s chocolate bunnies sold each year stretches from the company’s headquarters in Kirchberg, Switzerland, to San Diego, California, he added.
Gasser said the rabbit fight began in 2017, when Lindt first sued Lidl for selling chocolate bunnies wrapped in gold leaf (or other colored foil).
Lidl bunnies, like Lindt bunnies, are compact rabbits that crouch on all four legs. However, according to a photo provided by Gasser, the markings on the face and legs are different from those of the Linzbunny. Lindt Bunnies also wear red ribbons and bells, while Riddle Bunnies have yellow or green ribbons and bells.
In determining whether Lidl infringed its trademark with Lindt’s chocolate bunnies, the Supreme Court examined whether such shapes are protected under trademark law. This is the case when the brand is established in the market, according to the court’s statement.
Based on the results of a poll submitted by Lindt, the court determined that Lindt’s chocolate bunnies are well known in Switzerland and therefore established in the market.
The court also examined whether confusion was possible because of the similarities between the two bunnies. Despite certain product differences, we have concluded that such risks exist.
“Given the overall impression, Lidl’s rabbit is clearly related to Lindt’s rabbit shape,” the court said in a statement. “In the public mind, they are indistinguishable.”
Gasser indicated that the ruling would not deter Lidl from making a chocolate bunny. It was his understanding to make Bunnies again.
“Everything else is subject to introspection,” he writes.