Confectionery giant Nestle has failed to convince European judges that it has the right to trademark the shape of its four-finger KitKat bar in the UK. 
 
 The European Court of Justice said that the company had to demonstrate the public relied on the shape alone to identify the snack. 
 
 The judges concluded this was difficult to prove if goods also showed a brand name such as KitKat. 
 
 Rival Cadbury has battled to prevent Nestle obtaining the trademark. 
 
 Both Nestle and Cadbury said they were "pleased" with the ruling. 
 
 The case will now return to the UK High Court for a final decision. 
 
 Nestle claimed that in the 80 years since the chocolate bar was introduced, the four fingers have become almost completely associated with KitKats. 
 
 In June, a senior European court lawyer, the advocate-general, disagreed saying such a trademark did not comply with European law. 
 
 Nestle has not sought to trademark the two-fingered bar. 
 
 Sally Britton, intellectual property lawyer at Mishcon de Reya, said that Nestle was likely to continue arguing its case, "even if, as now appears likely, the English court decides that the KitKat shape should not be registered as a trade mark". 
 
 She said Nestle had experience of trying to register difficult marks. 
 
 It took more than 40 years for it to register the slogan "Have a Break" as a trade mark, finally succeeding in 2006, she added. 
 
 Image caption Norway's "Kvikk Lunsj" looks similar to the KitKat and is available in some parts of the UK 
 
 Chocolate wars 
 
 Wednesday's ruling is the latest development in a more than 10-year legal battle between Nestle and Cadbury, which started when Cadbury tried to trademark the purple colour it uses on its Cadbury chocolate wrappers. 
 
 Nestle objected and finally had the original decision allowing Cadbury to trademark the colour overturned in 2013. 
 
 Now it would appear Cadbury, which is owned by US company Mondelez International, has scored a significant but not final victory in the continuing chocolate war. 
 
 It has always argued the shape alone was not distinctive enough for consumers to associate it with the rival snack. 
 
 A bar called the Kvikk Lunsj, meaning "quick lunch", launched in Norway in 1937 is available in some UK shops, and although less well known, looks similar to the four-finger KitKat. 
 
 A ruling in favour of Nestle would stop other confectionery producers making chocolate bars of the same shape or size. ||||| Court of Appeal judges in London have stuck two fingers up to Nestle's attempts to trademark the shape of its famous four-fingered KitKat bar. 
 
 The ruling is the latest twist in a decade-long UK chocolate wars saga between Nestle and Cadbury. 
 
 The Dairy Milk maker failed in its own attempt to trademark the shade of purple it uses after Nestle complained. 
 
 But on Wednesday, it was the Cadbury bosses celebrating the latest attempt to foil KitKat's plans. 
 
 Nestle claimed that the shape of the bar was so unique, it should be protected by law. 
 
 But time after time, judges have thrown out the attempt. 
 
 Its case was not helped by the existence of a similar Norwegian bar, called Kvikk Lunsj, which means "quick lunch" and has been around since 1937. 
 
 Image caption Norway's "Kvikk Lunsj" looks similar to the KitKat and is available in some parts of the UK 
 
 A spokesperson for Nestle said the company is weighing up its options. 
 
 "Nestle is disappointed by the Court of Appeal judgment and is considering next steps. 
 
 "KitKat is much loved around the world and its four-finger shape is well known by consumers. 
 
 "Nestlé's four-finger shape has been granted trademark registration in many countries of the world, for instance Germany, France, Australia, South Africa and Canada, further protecting it from imitations." 
 
 Copycat versions 
 
 Cadbury's owner, Mondelez, which fought the attempt, said: "We are pleased with the Court of Appeal's decision today and welcome their conclusion. 
 
 "As we have previously stated, we do not believe the shape of the KitKat bar should be protected as a trademark in the UK." 
 
 The ruling could lead to copycat versions of the bars hitting shelves, a practice some discounter supermarkets have popularised. 
 
 Aldi and Lidl have both been accused of selling own-brand versions that are remarkably similar to famous brands. 
 
 KitKats were first snapped up by the public in 1935 by Rowntree, when it was called the Chocolate Crisp. 
 
 Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Cadbury failed to trademark its famous purple colour 
 
 In September 2015, Nestle failed to persuade European judges of its arguments. 
 
 The European Court of Justice said that the company had to demonstrate the public relied on the shape alone to identify the snack. 
 
 They concluded this was difficult to prove if goods also showed a brand name, such as KitKat. 
 
 Nestle has experience of trying to register difficult trade marks. 
 
 It took more than 40 years for it to register the slogan "Have a Break" as a trade mark, finally succeeding in 2006. 
 
 Chocolate wars 
 
 Nestle first tried to trademark the shape of the four-fingered chocolate bar in 2010, but its attempts were opposed by Cadbury. 
 
 The two have also battled over other trademarks. In 2013, Nestle blocked Cadbury's attempts to register the shade of purple used in the packaging of Dairy Milk. 
 
 Nestle has not sought to trademark the two-fingered bar. 
 
 Shapes can be trademarked for certain distinctive products - such as the familiar Coca-Cola bottle - but others can struggle. 
 
 Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning ||||| Court of appeal rules against Nestlé in its protracted battle with Cadbury over whether format should be protected by law 
 
 It’s enough to make anyone need a sit-down with a cup of tea and a four-fingered chocolate wafer biscuit. 
 
 The confectionery multinational Nestlé has lost the latest round of its long-running battle with rivals Cadbury to trademark the shape of the KitKat bar in the UK. The court of appeal ruled that the four-finger design had “no inherent distinctiveness”. 
 
 After deliberating for months, the three appeals judges delivered their judgment on Wednesday in a 16,000-word ruling that found the KitKat shape was not a “badge of origin”. 
 
 “We are concerned here with ... the three-dimensional shape of a chocolate product, that has no inherent distinctiveness,” said Lord Justice Kitchin. 
 
 The ruling marks the latest stage in a bitter-tasting battle between Nestlé and Mondelēz, the US owner of Cadbury, that have been battling over the KitKat trademark for seven years. 
 
 Nestle’s appeal followed a UK high court ruling in January last year that blocked the trademark attempt. The European court of justice had previously found that the four-fingered shape, breaking apart with a snap, was not distinctive enough to merit a trademark and that such a designation would not comply with European law. 
 
 The ruling clears the way for competitors, including the major supermarkets as well as other confectioners, to produce their own copycat KitKats without fear of legal consequences. 
 
 But a Nestlé spokesperson indicated the Swiss firm was not necessarily prepared to give up, saying it was considering its next move. The company could potentially try to take the case to the UK supreme court. 
 
 “Nestlé is disappointed by the court of appeal judgment and is considering its next steps,” said the spokesperson. “KitKat is much loved around the world and its four-finger shape is well known by consumers. Nestlé’s four-finger shape has been granted trademark registration in many countries of the world, for instance Germany, France, Australia, South Africa and Canada, further protecting it from imitations.” 
 
 Following the appeal ruling, a Mondelēz spokesperson said: “As we have previously stated, we do not believe the shape of the KitKat bar should be protected as a trademark in the UK.” 
 
 The case turned on whether a the product’s shapewas sufficiently distinctive to the brand to prevent any other manufacturer using a similar format. Protected “shape marks” are not without precedent — Toblerone, which is owned by Mondelēz, has successfully trademarked its “zigzag prism” shape. 
 
 But the appeal judges found that while the four-finger shape might be “very well known” in association with KitKat, “that does not necessarily mean that the public have come to perceive the shape as a badge of origin such that they would rely upon it alone to identify the product as coming from a particular source. 
 
 “They might simply regard the shape as a characteristic of products of that kind or they might find it brings to mind the product and brand name with which they have become familiar. 
 
 “These kinds of recognition and association do not amount to distinctiveness for trademark purposes.” 
 
 The judges also noted that the chocolate bar’s shape had not been central to its marketing in recent years: “It has nothing, therefore, to do with the informed choices that consumers make between similar products.” 
 
 The judges heard that Nestlé had spent between £3m and £11m a year advertising and promoting KitKats between 1996 and 2007. More than 40m were sold in Britain in 2010. 
 
 “The appeal court’s ruling indicates that shape marks are going to be increasingly difficult to obtain,” said Guy Wilmot, partner who specialises in intellectual property law at Russell-Cooke. 
 
 “The court were ... concerned that if they granted the trade mark, Nestlé would have a potentially permanent monopoly on the four-finger shape, which they felt would be unfair given that KitKat had never used the shape alone to promote KitKats.” 
 
 Clare Jackman, an intellectual property lawyer at Norton Rose Fulbright, said the fact the two multinationals were prepared to battle through the courts for so long showed the value of what was at stake. 
 
 “Trademarks are very important and valuable business assets. They confer monopoly rights, so I can see entirely why Nestlé thought, ‘our four-finger bar KitKat has been around for ages, let’s register it, because we can stop anyone from producing a bar in four fingers’”, she said. 
 
 “It is typically brand owners in this space that will spend the money and push the boundaries, in trying to get as much protection as possible, because at the end of the day trademarks can potentially last forever, so it really is a signficant monopoly right.” 
 
 Asked if she could foresee a challenge in supreme court, Jackman said: “I’m not going to rule it out, because I think these are two brand owners who are prepared to push this as far as it can go.” 
 
 The four-fingered battle is not the only protracted legal disputes between the two confectioners. In 2004, Cadbury attempted to trademark the shade of purple it uses for its Dairy Milk bars, registering Pantone 2685C in a move that was initially successful before the court of appeal backed Nestlé challenge in 2013. An attempt last year by Cadbury to resurrect an earlier trademark on the colour was rejected by the high court. 
 
 The first KitKat-type bar was sold in Britain by Rowntree in 1935, when it was called Chocolate Crisp, and the shape has changed little since then. Nestlé acquired Rowntree in 1998. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Freia’s rival Kvikk Lunsj bar is available in the UK as well as its native Norway. Photograph: Freia 
 
 A lookalike called Kvikk Lunsj, translated as “quick lunch”, launched in Norway in 1937 and is available in some UK shops. 
 
 • This article was amended on 18 May 2017. The judge’s ruling was not a “badge of origin”, a previous version said the judge’s ruling was not a “badge or origin”.
– It started with a candy wrapper and ended (for now) in a courtroom. Nestle's attempts to trademark the shape of its "four-fingered" KitKat have been rejected by the European Court of Justice, which ruled that shape alone isn't enough to recognize it as a KitKat, the BBC reports. The decision was a setback for Nestle—which manages the brand overseas; Hershey is licensed to sell the brand here in the US—and a victory for Cadbury, which was trying to block the trademark. The ruling means that, for now, other candy companies can make similar-looking chocolate bars. Nestle, which reaped more than $60 million a year from 2008 to 2010 in the UK from KitKat, argued that the four-fingered design has become inextricably associated with the KitKat brand over the past eight decades, Bloomberg notes. But Cadbury said the shape wasn't enough to make a consumer automatically think "KitKat," and the court agreed. The BBC even notes that in Norway, a lesser-known chocolate bar called Kvikk Lunsj ("quick lunch") has been around for nearly as long as KitKat. The fight between the two confectionary giants is the second major brouhaha they've had in recent years: In 2013, Nestle managed to block Cadbury's attempts to trademark its signature purple-colored chocolate wrappers, per Bloomberg. KitKat case now heads back to the UK High Court, which will render a final decision. (Claims of excess lead in Nestle noodles led to a major recall in India.)