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
-
Caporaso Pty Ltd v Mercato Centrale Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 256
TRADE MARKS – form of order for amendment of Register of Trade Marks – cross-respondent the registered owner of a trade mark in certain services in class 43 – cross-claimant alleging the registered owner of the trade mark was not the owner – cross-claim upheld in relation to some of the registered services but not…
-
Societe Civile et Agricole du Vieux Chateau Certan v Kreglinger (Australia) Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 248
CORPORATIONS — Bordeaux wine — Tasmanian wine — passing off — extent of reputation of French wine in Australia — relevant date for assessing reputation — classes of consumers — evidence of confusion — characteristics or knowledge of ordinary and reasonable person — misleading or deceptive conduct — misrepresentation — contraventions of ss 18…
-
Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (Pleadings Issues) [2024] FCA 223
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – cross-claim – application to strike out certain paragraphs of Cross-Respondent’s defence – whether relevant parts of defence fail to disclose a reasonable defence or are otherwise an abuse of process in accordance with rr 16.21(1)(e)-(f) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to amend defence to…
