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
-
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…
-
Boost Tel Pty Ltd v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 213
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – application for urgent interlocutory injunction – alleged infringement of trade mark – whether prima facie case of trade mark infringement – whether balance of convenience favours grant of interlocutory injunction – held: interlocutory injunction granted
