TRADE MARKS – application for removal from Register due to lack of good faith use under s 92(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether use as a trade mark over the relevant four-day period – whether use in relation to relevant class of goods – whether use in good faith – where trade mark purchased for the purpose of litigation – whether use authorised – where trade mark purchased by third party and assigned to relevant user – where licence agreement stipulated the form of the use of the trade mark
TRADE MARKS – application for cancellation under s 88(1)(a) of the Act under the ground in s 88(2)(c) – whether use of trade mark with earlier priority date is likely to deceive or cause confusion
TRADE MARKS – application for cancellation under s 88(1)(a) of the Act under the ground in ss 88(2)(a) and 41 – whether trade marks inherently adapted to distinguish goods and services – whether rival traders with no improper motive would wish to use words for their ordinary signification – relevance of words closely resembling the trade marks – where trade marks inherently adapted to distinguish goods to some extent – factual distinctiveness – where evidence of use and intended use does not establish that trade marks were inherently adapted to distinguish at the priority date – where ground for rectification established – whether to exercise discretion not to cancel trade mark registration
TRADE MARKS – application for cancellation under s 88(1)(a) of the Act under the ground in ss 88(2)(a) and 44 – where trade marks are deceptively similar – whether, in the circumstances, it would be proper to accept the application under s 44(3)(b) – where ground for rectification established – whether to exercise discretion not to cancel trade mark registration
TRADE MARKS – infringement – deceptive similarity
TRADE MARKS – infringement – defences under ss 122(1)(e) and 122(1)(fa)
Recent cases about trademark infringement
-
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)…
-
FanFirm Pty Limited v Fanatics, LLC (No 2) [2024] FCA 826
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of orders pursuant to r 36.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether stay or rectification of the Trade Marks Register more suitable course pending determination of appeal – whether stay or injunction more suitable course pending determination of appeal – application partially granted.
-
FanFirm Pty Limited v Fanatics, LLC [2024] FCA 764
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…
