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
-
Progressive Green Pty Ltd v Flo Energy Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1315
TRADE MARKS – application for removal from Register due to lack of good faith use under s 92(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether use as a trade mark over the relevant four-day period – whether use in relation to relevant class of goods – whether use in good faith – where…
-
Thomas v Monsoon Group Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 911
TRADE MARKS – non-use – where the respondent brought a non-use action before the Registrar of Trade Marks (the Registrar) pursuant to s 92(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act) – whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to appeal decision of the Registrar’s delegate under r 34.25 of the Federal Court Rules…
-
Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 750
TRADE MARKS – whether composite marks containing the registered mark and other words (Opposed Marks) deceptively similar under s 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether the appellant’s trade mark acquired a reputation in Australia before the Priority Date and because of that reputation would likely deceive or cause confusion under s…
