Lawyers for litigation

The Practice Pty Ltd v The Practice Business Advisers & Tax Practitioners Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1299

The Practice Pty Ltd v The Practice Business Advisers & Tax Practitioners Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1299

 

TRADE MARKS – infringement claim pursuant to s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act) – whether the respondent used the plain word mark THE PRACTICE as a trade mark – whether the respondent’s marks are substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the applicant’s mark – defence under s 122(1)(b)(i) of the Act – whether the respondent used its logo in good faith to indicate the kind, quality or intended purpose of the services it offers – defence under s 122(1)(f) or (fa) of the Act – whether the respondent would obtain registration of its logo under s 44(3)(a) or (b) of the Act — where respondent’s use of its logo was not in good faith or honest due to inadequate searches – defences not made out – claim allowed – declaratory and injunctive relief granted — damages of $200,000 awarded, including $100,000 in additional damages


Related trade mark cases

  • Cargill, Incorporated v Cargill Financial Services International Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 604

    TRADE MARKS – infringement – Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 120 – use of name as a mark – use of deceptively similar mark – infringement established. TRADE MARKS – application for final relief – application for relief where respondents rogue agents – application to change name on ASIC register – application to change…

  • Vitaco Health IP Pty Ltd v AFI Cosmetic Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 598

    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment pursuant to r 5.23(2)(c) and/or (d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where the respondents have failed to comply with court orders and failed to appear – allegations of trade mark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off – where marks were used by…

  • Seven Network (Operations) Limited v 7-Eleven Inc [2024] FCAFC 65

    TRADE MARKS – non-use – Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 92(4)(b) – whether primary judge erred in finding that registered trade mark owner had not established use during relevant period – use in relation to particular goods and services alleged to have occurred by display of mark on website – use partially established for…

Send this to a friend