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
-
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…
-
Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1443
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – application for interlocutory injunction on grounds of contravention of ss 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)), passing off and infringement of a registered trade mark under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – consideration of relevant factors…
-
Caporaso Pty Ltd v Mercato Centrale Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 156
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…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2023/2023fcafc0044
For more information, see the original judgement.
