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
-
Progressive Green Pty Ltd v Flo Energy Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1315
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…
-
Thomas v Monsoon Group Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 911
TRADE MARKS – non-use – where the respondent brought a non-use action before the Registrar of Trade Marks (the Registrar) pursuant to s 92(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act) – whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to appeal decision of the Registrar’s delegate under r 34.25 of the Federal Court Rules…
-
Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 750
TRADE MARKS – whether composite marks containing the registered mark and other words (Opposed Marks) deceptively similar under s 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether the appellant’s trade mark acquired a reputation in Australia before the Priority Date and because of that reputation would likely deceive or cause confusion under s…
