TRADE MARKS – appeal from decision of Registrar – non-use – mark used in relevant period as part of composite marks – “mark within a mark” – appeal allowed
TRADE MARKS – whether second word in each of composite marks used after trade mark were additions or alterations “substantially affecting its identity” – held that suffixes were integral part of the composite marks
TRADE MARKS – cancellation action – whether device mark was capable of distinguishing goods as a trade mark – whether holder did not intend to use it, or registered it in bad faith – trade mark not cancelled
TRADE MARKS – whether device mark acted as a word mark to monopolise use of the word “FYRE” meaning FIRE – held that device elements and deliberate misspelling of “fire” did not provide monopoly of use – whether limitation under s 88(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) should be made – application for limitation dismissed
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0202For more information, see the original judgement.