Lawyers for litigation

FanFirm Pty Limited v Fanatics, LLC [2024] FCA 764

FanFirm Pty Limited v Fanatics, LLC [2024] FCA 764

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

  • Cargill, Incorporated v Cargill Financial Services International Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 604

    TRADE MARKS – infringement – Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 120 – use of name as a mark – use of deceptively similar mark – infringement established. TRADE MARKS – application for final relief – application for relief where respondents rogue agents – application to change name on ASIC register – application to change…

  • Vitaco Health IP Pty Ltd v AFI Cosmetic Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 598

    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment pursuant to r 5.23(2)(c) and/or (d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where the respondents have failed to comply with court orders and failed to appear – allegations of trade mark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off – where marks were used by…

  • Seven Network (Operations) Limited v 7-Eleven Inc [2024] FCAFC 65

    TRADE MARKS – non-use – Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 92(4)(b) – whether primary judge erred in finding that registered trade mark owner had not established use during relevant period – use in relation to particular goods and services alleged to have occurred by display of mark on website – use partially established for…

Send this to a friend