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
-
Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 1258
TRADE MARKS – infringement – whether the respondents have infringed the applicant’s registered trade marks comprising the word ORO TRADE MARKS – infringement – defences to infringement – whether the respondents can establish the defences under ss 122(1)(b)(i), 122(1)(e), 122(1)(f) and (fa), and 124 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) TRADE MARKS – validity…
-
Chapcon Building Services Pty Ltd v Spectrum Homes Qld Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 873
COPYRIGHT – statement of claim alleged that director of company caused, authorised, directed or procured company to engage in conduct alleged to infringe copyright in plans – no material facts pleaded to support conclusion – no evidence adduced on summary judgment application to demonstrate any foundation exists to make allegation – uncontested evidence adduced by…
-
Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2023] FCA 777
The Federal Court of Australia has granted an injunction involving intellectual property rights, copyright, and alleged infringement of copyright works online. Learn more about this groundbreaking ruling and its implications.
