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
-
The Practice Pty Ltd v The Practice Business Advisers & Tax Practitioners Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1299
TRADE MARKS – infringement claim pursuant to s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act) – whether the respondent used the plain word mark THE PRACTICE as a trade mark – whether the respondent’s marks are substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the applicant’s mark – defence under s 122(1)(b)(i)…
-
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)…
