TRADE MARKS – infringement claim pursuant to s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether the infringing marks are substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the applicant’s mark – defence under s 122(1)(f) and (fa) of the Act – whether respondents would obtain registration of the infringing marks if they were to apply for it on the basis of honest concurrent use – defence under s 122(1)(a) of the Act – whether the respondents are entitled to use of the “own name” defence – whether the applicant should be denied relief by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, delay or laches – application for removal of the applicant’s mark pursuant to s 92(1) and s 92(4)(b) of the Act – whether the applicant did not during the relevant non-use period use its registered mark in good faith in relation to its services – claim under s 88(1) of the Act to rectify the Register of Trade Marks by cancelling the applicant’s mark – whether ground in s 88(2)(c) of the Act is established – whether use of the applicant’s mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion – claim under s 129 of the Act – whether the applicant’s threats to bring an action were unjustified
Related cases about 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…
-
Somers Enterprises Australia PL v Basefun PL [2025] FCA 218
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – trade marks – registration – application for removal for non-use – appeal de novo – extent of use in relevant class within Australia – discretion of Court to allow mark to remain on Register of Trade Marks – appeal allowed – Trade Mark retained on Register Related cases about trademark revocation Original…
-
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…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0540
For more information, see the original judgement.
