TRADE MARKS — s 62(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – where an Examiner considered that a trade mark under examination was not inherently adapted to distinguish in respect of a certain class, and sought evidence or representations as to the trade mark applicant’s prior use of the mark – where the representations as to prior use by the trade mark applicant were false – where the primary judge held that the trade mark in question was inherently adapted to distinguish, and so evidence of prior use was irrelevant to the registrability of the mark – whether the primary judge erred in holding that evidence or representations are not “false in material particulars” unless false in a way that affects the registrability of the trade mark – Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 160; 67 IPR 628 and Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 184; 164 FCR 506, considered – held: the ground of opposition in s 62(b) can be established even where the evidence or representations in ques
Related cases about trademark infringement
-
Paco Nominees PL v Ella Secret Australia PL (Default Judgment) [2025] FCA 366
TRADE MARKS – default judgment – respondents’ failure to comply with orders and appear – claim of trade mark infringement – default judgment granted PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment pursuant to r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether appropriate to grant injunction – whether satisfied that an order…
-
Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 12
TRADE MARKS – validity – ownership – where primary judge found appellant (Cantarella) was not the owner of the ORO trade mark and ordered that registrations be cancelled pursuant to ss 88(1)(a) and 58 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Act”) – where primary judge found prior use of trade marks by third…
-
Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd (Costs) [2025] FCA 38
COSTS — where the applicants brought a claim of trade mark infringement against the respondent – where the respondent brought a cross-claim seeking the cancellation of the first applicant’s registered trade mark – where both the applicants’ claim and the respondent’s cross-claim failed – where the cross-claim was only ever defensive – whether the respondent…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2024/2024fcafc0156
For more information, see the original judgement.
