Bunhill: Melts in the mouth, not in the courtroom
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.You might have thought that Cadbury had taken surrealism as far as it could go in the 1980s with its infamous "Flake" adverts, which for some reason featured shots of an iguana slithering across a telephone while an enticing-looking woman simulated fellatio (with the flake, not the lizard). But how mundane all that seems now following the company's bizarre recent reversals at the hands of m'learned friends.
First of all there was the ruling from Europe's law lords that the description "milk chocolate" was misleading and unacceptable, given the comparatively low cocoa content in British products. This decision was bad enough for consumers who've grown up with the term, but even worse for Cadbury when you consider that a modern-day Flake ad would have to go something like this: "Only the crumbliest, flakiest chocolate tastes like chocolate with a 5 per cent vegetable fat content never tasted before."
But a still more bitter defeat was to follow last week when the High Court upheld a complaint from the Swiss chocolate industry that Cadbury had infringed some sort of territorial copyright law by naming one of its products "Swiss Chalet". Never mind that emblazoned on the packaging is the word "Cadbury" - a name so synonymous with British chocolate that you can taste the products when you say it; consumers, it seems, might think they were buying the "real thing".
In some cases this might just be true - though only, I suspect, for people who've purchased a "Swiss Chalet" after imbibing long and hard of one of the products from Diageo - but overall it's plain nonsense ... or even milk nonsense. As far as I know, for example, Swiss Rolls have not been sued for sponging off that country's reputation for incomparable cakes, nor have British restaurants faced litigation for passing off chips as French Fries, and nor has the fashion chain Oasis taken the band of the same name to court for any suggestion that people might think the Gallagher brothers are big girls' blouses. The only souls to whom all these chocolate capers make any sense are the lawyers, who are probably laughing all the way to their Swiss banks. For them - I'd wager the costs of OJ Simpson's defence team - the fun has only just begun.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments