INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – trade marks – alleged infringement of registered marks under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – deceptive similarity – misleading or deceptive conduct – alleged breaches of s 18 and s 29(1)(g) and (h) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) – tort of passing off.
TRADE MARKS – infringement – deceptive similarity – s 120 of the Act – non-use – cancellation of registered trade marks – honest and concurrent use – own name defence
– defences under ss 122(1)(e), 122(1)(f), 122(1)(fa) of the Act – whether discretion should be exercised not to cancel the registrations – cross-claim for trade mark infringement, cancellation of trade marks or rectification of the Register of Trade Marks in respect of them.
CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – false or misleading representation – alleged breaches of s 18 and s 29(1)(g) and (h) of the ACL – passing off – contravention not established.
Related cases – trademark infringement
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0764
For more information, see the original judgement.
