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
-
Redbubble Ltd v Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation (Australia) Pty Limited [2024] FCAFC 15
CONTRACTS – construction – scope of releases in settlement agreement – prima facie canon of construction -whether releases apply to proceeding TRADE MARKS – infringement – trap viewing – extra-territorial application of s 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether images were available to consumers in the ordinary course of trade –…
-
Caporaso Pty Ltd v Mercato Centrale Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 138
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – trade marks – originating application alleging infringement of trade marks including the plain word mark mercato – whether the respondent has used, as a trade mark, a sign that is deceptively similar to any one of the applicant’s trade marks sued upon – cross-claim for cancellation of trade marks or rectification of…
-
The Agency Group Australia Ltd v H.A.S. Real Estate Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 203
TRADE MARKS – appeal – where primary judge found that the respondent had not infringed the second appellant’s registered trade marks – whether primary judge erred in finding that the word mark THE NORTH AGENCY used by the respondent was not deceptively similar to the second appellant’s registered trade mark – no error established –…
