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
-
Village Roadshow IP Pty Ltd v VUR Village Trading No 1 Limited [2025] FCA 428
TRADE MARKS – where the respondent brought non-use actions before the Registrar of Trade Marks (the Registrar) pursuant to s 92(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) against various class registrations of a trade mark (the Trade Mark) by the appellant – where the delegate of the Registrar determined that the Trade Mark had…
-
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
