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
-
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)…
-
Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1277
TRADE MARKS — shape marks – where the first applicant is the registered owner of a trade mark constituted by the shape of a cylindrical container with a stopper in Class 30 over coffee and instant coffee (the KDE shape mark) – where the respondent (Cantarella) released a 400-gram instant coffee product under its brand…
-
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)…
