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 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 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 read more...
Subjects: Trade marks

Partner:

Google’s new branding – trade mark issues for giants

Well, what do you think? Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed. Looks pretty good to me. I particularly like the new G logo.                 It is interesting to consider the portfolio management issues the re-brand poses, in this case from an Australian perspective. Does Google’s fame help it or hinder it in terms of its read more...

Combination marks – the limits of Medion further defined by Arnold J in Jura Origin case

The European Court of Justice’s decision in Medion (Case C-120/04) is one that can provoke vitriol among even the calmest of practitioners. That case involved an infringement action taken against the use of the mark THOMSON LIFE by Thomson, in the face of Medion’s earlier registration for LIFE. The court ruled as follows: “ … read more...
Subjects: Trade marks

Partner:

“Re-calculating … turn around when possible” – In TomTom decision, clear thinking on “wrong way round” confusion

We’ve devoted a bit of airspace to that hoary old chestnut, reverse (or “wrong way round”) confusion. See our earlier notes on the Glee and Europcar cases (here, here and here). It’s an interesting issue, and it’s also incredibly important in the context of a global economy in which fame can arrive overnight. Given the read more...
Subjects: Trade marks

Partner:

What’s in a name? (Try to) Keep up with the Kardashians

Here at IP Whiteboard, we learnt the power of a celebrity name when one of our posts got roughly 20 times more hits than we expected (and crashed the site in the process). Why? While we like to think the combination of on-trend pop culture knowledge and cutting edge legal analysis really drew readers in, read more...

Does it matter which Board of Appeal hears your case when it comes to the distinctiveness inquiry under article 7(1)(b)?

— An edited version of this article first appeared on IPKat on 12 November 2014 — Some recent decisions – and topical ones at that, with the holiday season imminently approaching for this new father (hi Jack and Willy!) – relating to the treatment of 2D and 3D marks for toys suggest that there might read more...
Subjects: Trade marks

Partner: