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
-
The Practice Pty Ltd v The Practice Business Advisers & Tax Practitioners Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1299
TRADE MARKS – infringement claim pursuant to s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act) – whether the respondent used the plain word mark THE PRACTICE as a trade mark – whether the respondent’s marks are substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the applicant’s mark – defence under s 122(1)(b)(i)…
-
Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1277
TRADE MARKS — shape marks – where the first applicant is the registered owner of a trade mark constituted by the shape of a cylindrical container with a stopper in Class 30 over coffee and instant coffee (the KDE shape mark) – where the respondent (Cantarella) released a 400-gram instant coffee product under its brand…
-
Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd v Bed Bath ‘N’ Table Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 139
CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – where, by its use of trade mark “HOUSE BED & BATH” (appellant’s mark) in relation to soft homewares in a market in which respondent’s trade mark “BED BATH ‘N’ TABLE” (respondent’s mark) has a significant reputation, appellant found to have contravened ss 18(1) and 29(1)(g) and (h)…
