TRADE MARKS – application for leave to appeal from judgment of a single judge of the Court pursuant to s 195(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act) – where primary judge dismissed an appeal from the decision of a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks in opposition proceedings – where delegate granted respondent’s application under s 92(4)(b) of the Act to remove the applicant’s registered trade mark MOTHERLAND from the Register for non-use – whether primary judge erred in finding applicant had not used MOTHERLAND as a trade mark – whether primary judge erred in finding applicant had not used MOTHERLAND as a trade mark during the relevant non-use period – no error established – application for leave to appeal dismissed
TRADE MARKS – application for leave to appeal from judgment of a single judge of the Court pursuant to s 195(2) of the Act – where primary judge dismissed an appeal from the decision of a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks in opposition proceedings – where delegate found that applicant had not established grounds of opposition under ss 44, 60 and 42(b) of the Act to the respondent’s application to register MOTHERSKY – whether primary judge erred in failing to find that “coffee” and “non-alcoholic beverages” are similar goods within the meaning of s 44(1) of the Act – whether primary judge erred in finding that MOTHERSKY is not deceptively similar to MOTHER within the meaning of s 44(1) – whether primary judge erred in failing to find that use of MOTHERSKY in respect of “coffee” would be likely to deceive or cause confusion due to the reputation of MOTHER – error established – application for leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed
Related cases – trademarks
-
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…
-
Somers Enterprises Australia PL v Basefun PL [2025] FCA 218
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – trade marks – registration – application for removal for non-use – appeal de novo – extent of use in relevant class within Australia – discretion of Court to allow mark to remain on Register of Trade Marks – appeal allowed – Trade Mark retained on Register Related cases about trademark revocation Original…
-
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…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2023/2023fcafc0044
For more information, see the original judgement.
