Category Archive for: ‘Trade marks’

Would you like rights with that? The real reason behind In-N-Out’s periodic pop-ups?

In-N-Out has again given bloggers and Instagrammers heart palpitations by opening a pop-up restaurant in Sydney for ONE DAY ONLY, leaving burger lovers from other parts of the country (including the author of this article) seething with jealousy — something that doesn’t often happen when non-Sydneysiders think of Sydney. By the way, if you’re reading this and interested in wrapping …

Read More
Partner:

Counter-productive? Australia’s Productivity Commission releases Final Report into Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements

Yesterday, Australia’s Productivity Commission released their Final Report into Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements. This report was sent to Government on 23 September 2016. The Government is carrying out additional public consultation in relation to the recommendations made in the Final Report, which differ in key respects from some of the Commission’s draft recommendations. You can make a submission here – …

Read More
Partner:

Levi’s stitches up win in jeans pocket case

You pick up a pair of jeans in the store, and you inspect the back pockets. (Is there anyone that doesn’t select jeans based on what is on the back pockets?) What brand of jeans are you holding? The answer would be obvious to many. They’re LEVI’S jeans. You could tell whether the word mark LEVI’S was there or not. …

Read More
Subjects:

Hand over the ouzo and no one gets hurt – Little Greek Taverna enjoins use of Little Greek Cuzina, and a Cheeky restaurant case from the UK

The owner of a registration for the LITTLE GREEK TAVERNA logo (below left) has obtained an interlocutory injunction enjoining the use of LITTLE GREEK CUZINA (below right) by two Brisbane restaurants*.          The facts 3 Florinians Pty Ltd (Taverna) is a family business run by its directors, Ms Elli Parmaklis, Ms Domna Papavasiliou and Mr Yianni Parmaklis. The …

Read More

Another case considering t-shirt branding. Has Silberquelle been transplanted into Australian law?

The Australian airline Qantas has had its opposition against the “t-shirt” mark below rejected by the Federal Court (Qantas Airways Limited v Edwards [2016] FCA 729). (Edwards’ Mark) The decision makes interesting reading in a number of respects, but this note only considers a discreet issue. Is use on a t-shirt trade mark use? If so, in respect of what …

Read More

Oze, Oze, Oze: A Mitey Victory for Dick Smith Investments Pty Ltd

The Federal Court has ruled that Dick Smith’s Ozemite trade mark can remain on the Register, forcing patriotic-spread-loving Australians to choose between it and competitor, Aussie Mite. Although Ozemite was registered as a trademark before its homophonic counterpart and thereafter promoted vigorously by “National Living Treasure,” Mr Smith, Ozemite did not reach supermarket shelves for another eight years. In the …

Read More
Subjects:
Partner:

STG v Trojan: protecting trade mark rights in the context of parallel importation

In the recent decision in Scandinavian Tobacco Group Eersel BV v Trojan Trading Company Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 91 (STG v Trojan), the Full Federal Court held that the defence to trade mark infringement under section 123 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (Act), based on the trade mark owner’s consent to application of the trade mark, will apply …

Read More

Treatment of two and three-colour marks in Australia, New Zealand and the EU – some recent cases – Part 1 – the 7-Eleven stripes

We have all read with interest case law relating to single colour marks. Three recent decisions have considered the registrability of colour marks of a slightly different variety, namely signs said to comprise a combination, depiction or arrangement of a number of colours. 7-Eleven – NZ Discount Drugstores – AU August Storck – EU These cases can raise definitional issues …

Read More
Subjects:

An “all or nothing” approach to trade mark opposition proceedings in Australia?

A Hearing Officer at IP Australia recently upheld McDonald’s opposition against the mark McKosher in respect of a broad range of goods and services in classes 29, 30, 32 and 43. McDonald’s demonstrated a reputation in Australia in various earlier Mc-formative trade marks such that there was a likelihood of contextual confusion. The McKosher mark was “of the same conceptual …

Read More
Subjects:

Page 1 of 3312345»102030...Last »