The title of this post is probably an apostrophe away to actually making grammatical sense, if it doesn’t already do so. Think about it, if I say ” weight watchers’ waist watchers”, ( for a moment try and blank out the acquired / secondary meanings these words have in society, in preference to the ordinary meanings of the words themselves) it will probably mean 2 groups of people:- One group (the waist watchers) that is ‘watching’ another group (the weight watchers). 😐
Anyhow, that’s not the reason for this post and is totally irrelevant to what I’m about to write. Please erase it out of your mind. 🙂
What is of some relevance, to this blog at least (since it claims to give a street perspective on some IP issues), is a recent preliminary ruling regarding Weight Watchers International, the billion dollar turnover American company, which has found a nemesis in Waist Watchers, a brand of sandwiches, by Love bites Ltd.
From the preliminary ruling, it seems the judge was of the view that there may be a case of infringement, although such a view was not binding on the courts and the parties. In particular he says “… there is a strong case that the defendants are likely to be found to infringe the claimant’s trade marks…it is highly likely that the Court will find that WAIST WATCHERS is a mark which will, in the mind of an ordinary consumer, form a link with WEIGHT WATCHERS and that link is one which will very likely cause a detriment to, or take an unfair advantage of, the distinctive character or repute of the claimants’ mark.”
If you are that intrigued to know more, click here.
Another different WW vs WW analysis [via brandgeek]
Waist watcher for pets here
Fat discrimination here
- Weight Watchers not about dieting, but learning how to eat (times-news.com)
- weight watchers poems (melvinmonson.typepad.com)
- ww points plus cheesecake factory (isiahmeyer.typepad.com)
- Jessica Simpson Putting in Serious Time for Weight Watchers (celebs.gather.com)