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 [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)…
-
FanFirm Pty Limited v Fanatics, LLC (No 2) [2024] FCA 826
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of orders pursuant to r 36.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether stay or rectification of the Trade Marks Register more suitable course pending determination of appeal – whether stay or injunction more suitable course pending determination of appeal – application partially granted.
