Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
ausip:trade-mark-infringement [2018/11/02 12:07]
jessiej_87 Edit and additional content
ausip:trade-mark-infringement [2019/03/10 13:31] (current)
jessiej_87
Line 3: Line 3:
 Trade mark infringement occurs when a defendant uses a registered sign as a mark within the course of trade in a way that attempts to distinguish their goods or services. ​ Trade mark infringement occurs when a defendant uses a registered sign as a mark within the course of trade in a way that attempts to distinguish their goods or services. ​
  
-Not all uses of registered trade marks will be infringements. Uses which merely refer to a product or brand or other descriptive uses of a trade mark term are not going to be infringements unless they are used in a way that amounts to use as a trade mark. This means that infringement only occurs if the sign is used in a way that seeks to distinguish products or services. ((Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd [1963] HCA 66))+Not all uses of registered trade marks will be infringements. Uses which merely refer to a product or brand or other descriptive uses of a trade mark are not going to be infringements unless they are used in a way that amounts to use as a trade mark. This means that infringement only occurs if the sign is used in a way that seeks to distinguish products or services. ((//Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd// [1963] HCA 66))
  
 **The below video by Nicolas Suzor provides an overview of [The Trademark Infringement Framework](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=figyb5V4Q2o&​list=PLa0bKPnUKQrxD942qJoDGW_7qbB6O6a7B&​index=1).** **The below video by Nicolas Suzor provides an overview of [The Trademark Infringement Framework](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=figyb5V4Q2o&​list=PLa0bKPnUKQrxD942qJoDGW_7qbB6O6a7B&​index=1).**
Line 20: Line 20:
 Section 120 of the //TMA// sets out the three ways in which a trade mark can be infringed. These are: Section 120 of the //TMA// sets out the three ways in which a trade mark can be infringed. These are:
  
-1. A person uses as a trade mark a sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the registered trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered. ((//TMA// s 120(1) ))+1. A person usesas a trade marka sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the registered trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered. ((//TMA// s 120(1) ))
  
-2. A person uses as a trade mark a sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the registered trade mark in relation to goods of the same description or services that are closely related to  registered goods; or services of the same description or goods that are closely related to registered services.((//​TMA//​ s 120(2) )) +2. A person usesas a trade marka sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the registered trade mark in relation to goods of the same description or services that are closely related to  registered goods; or services of the same description or goods that are closely related to registered services.((//​TMA//​ s 120(2) )) 
  
-3. A person uses as a trade mark a sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to a registered trade mark that is well-known in Australia, in relation to: (( //TMA// s 120(3) ))+3. A person usesas a trade marka sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to a registered trade mark that is well-known in Australia, in relation to: (( //TMA// s 120(3) ))
  
   * The goods or services are not of the same description or not closely related; and   * The goods or services are not of the same description or not closely related; and
Line 45: Line 45:
 ### Same Goods/​Services ### Same Goods/​Services
  
-Infringement may occur with when an alleged infringing mark is used in the class of goods or services as the registered mark.  ((//TMA// s120(1) )) This type of trade mark infringement is known as '​vanilla'​ infringement,​ where the defendant is using a mark as a trade mark, which  is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark, with respect to the same goods or services for which the trade mark is registered. For example, the registered trade mark is used with respect to cola flavoured drink and the alleged infringing mark is used on cola flavoured drink. The onus is on the registered owner to show trade mark infringement.+Infringement may occur with when an alleged infringing mark is used in the same class of goods or services as the registered mark.  ((//TMA// s120(1) )) This type of trade mark infringement is known as '​vanilla'​ infringement,​ where the defendant is using a mark as a trade mark, which  is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark, with respect to the same goods or services for which the trade mark is registered. For example, the registered trade mark is used with respect to cola flavoured drink and the alleged infringing mark is used on cola flavoured drink. The onus is on the registered owner to show trade mark infringement.
  
 For more information read Amanda Scardamaglia'​s *The Coca-Cola Company v Pepsico Inc & Ors* VID 876/​2010[‘Storm in a Contour Bottle? – The Coca-Cola Company v Pepsico Inc & Ors VID 876/​2010’,​ Fortnightly Review of IP & Media Law, Edition 18 (11 November 2010)](https://​researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/​file/​c341d5be-acec-4403-bd61-60add0b15243/​1/​PDF%20%28Published%20version%29.pdf) Licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 Licence). ​ For more information read Amanda Scardamaglia'​s *The Coca-Cola Company v Pepsico Inc & Ors* VID 876/​2010[‘Storm in a Contour Bottle? – The Coca-Cola Company v Pepsico Inc & Ors VID 876/​2010’,​ Fortnightly Review of IP & Media Law, Edition 18 (11 November 2010)](https://​researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/​file/​c341d5be-acec-4403-bd61-60add0b15243/​1/​PDF%20%28Published%20version%29.pdf) Licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 Licence). ​
Line 51: Line 51:
 ### Same Description/​Closely Related Goods or Services ### Same Description/​Closely Related Goods or Services
  
-Infringement may occur where the defendant is using a  mark as a trade mark, which  is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark, with respect to goods or services of the same description or goods or services that are closely related. ((//TMA// s 120(2) )) Note this section also functions as an informal defence (see below). The onus is reversed so the defendant must prove a lack of likelihood of deception or confusion. ​+Infringement may occur where the defendant is using a mark as a trade mark, which  is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark, with respect to goods or services of the same description or goods or services that are closely related. ((//TMA// s 120(2) )) Note this section also functions as an informal defence (see below). The onus is reversed so the defendant must prove a lack of likelihood of deception or confusion. ​
  
 This subsection protects traders and the public from unscrupulous dealers who want to pass off a new product as someone else’s. It also protects against dilatation of the value of the trade mark by allowing others to use it as they like, but in different categories. ​ This subsection protects traders and the public from unscrupulous dealers who want to pass off a new product as someone else’s. It also protects against dilatation of the value of the trade mark by allowing others to use it as they like, but in different categories. ​
  
-The principles of goods and services being of the same description or closely related are largely the same as apply in the context of //TMA// s 44. Goods will not be of the ‘same description’ if their sale under the same mark by different companies would not be likely to lead to confusion or deception. If the public would not expect the same business to supply both of the goods and/or services, then the two are unlikely to be considered closely related.+The principles of goods and services being of the same description or closely related are largely the same as those that apply in the context of //TMA// s 44. Goods will not be of the ‘same description’ if their sale under the same mark by different companies would not be likely to lead to confusion or deception. If the public would not expect the same business to supply both of the goods and/or services, then the two are unlikely to be considered closely related.
  
-In *E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd*, (([2009] FCAFC 27))  Gallo Winery was the registered owner of the trade mark BAREFOOT in relation to wines in Australia. ​ Lion Nathan (Australia) started selling a specialty beer under the trade mark BAREFOOT RADLER from January 2008. Infringement was established as beer and wine were held to be goods of the same description. ​+__//E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited//(([2009] FCAFC 27))__
  
-*Musidor BV Tansing ​(t/as Apple Music House)*(([1993FCA 645)) concerned Musidor selling Rolling Stones bootlegs. Musidor made it plain in its advertising and get-up that the source of the origin ​of the goods was not authorisedHeld, the disclaimer was effective to show that the goods were not relatedIt was held that no infringement occurred.+In *[E & J Gallo Winery ​Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited](http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2009/​27.html)* (([2009FCAFC 27))  Gallo Winery was the registered owner of the trade mark '​Barefoot'​ in relation to wines in Australia Lion Nathan (Australia) started selling a specialty beer under the trade mark '​Barefoot Radler'​ from January 2008Infringement ​was established as beer and wine were held to be goods of the same description
  
-In *Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v South Australian Brewing Co Ltd*, (([1996] FCA 1484)) 'DUFF' beer which disclaimed any association with The Simpsons was still held to amount to infringement. The disclaimer was too simplistic in approach. The beer was an express reference to The Simpsons and therefore the disclaimer was not effective.+__//Musidor BV v Tansing (t/as Apple Music House//​(([1993] FCA 645))__ 
 + 
 +In *[Musidor BV v Tansing (t/as Apple Music House)](http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1993/​645.html),​ (([1993] FCA 645))* concerned Musidor selling Rolling Stones bootlegs. Musidor made it plain in its advertising and get-up that the source of the origin of the goods was not authorised. Held, the disclaimer was effective to show that the goods were not related. It was held that no infringement occurred. 
 + 
 +__//Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v South Australian Brewing Co Ltd//(([1996] FCA 1484))__ 
 + 
 +In *[Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v South Australian Brewing Co Ltd](http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1996/​1484.html)*, (([1996] FCA 1484)) 'Duff' beer which disclaimed any association with The Simpsons was still held to amount to infringement. The disclaimer was too simplistic in approach. The beer was an express reference to The Simpsons and therefore the disclaimer was not effective.
  
 ### Unrelated Goods Where Trade Mark is Well-Known ### Unrelated Goods Where Trade Mark is Well-Known
  
-Trade mark infringement may occur where the defendant is using a  mark as a trade mark, which  is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark, with respect to unrelated goods or services where the mark is well-known or famous. ((//TMA// s 120(3) )) +Trade mark infringement may occur where the defendant is using a  mark as a trade mark, which is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark, with respect to unrelated goods or services where the mark is well-known or famous. ((//TMA// s 120(3) )) 
  
 To establish this type of infringement the trade mark must be well-known in Australia; the person must use as a trade mark a sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to or not closely related goods or services; because the trade mark is well-known, the sign must be likely to be taken as indicating a connection between the unrelated goods or services and the registered owner of the trade mark; and for that reason, the interests of the registered owner are likely to be adversely affected. To establish this type of infringement the trade mark must be well-known in Australia; the person must use as a trade mark a sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to or not closely related goods or services; because the trade mark is well-known, the sign must be likely to be taken as indicating a connection between the unrelated goods or services and the registered owner of the trade mark; and for that reason, the interests of the registered owner are likely to be adversely affected.
Line 73: Line 79:
 Examples of well-known trade marks: Examples of well-known trade marks:
  
 +__//​Nintendo Co Ltd v Care//​(([2000] FCA 1538))__
 +
 +In *[Nintendo Co Ltd v Care](http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2000/​1538.html)* – the Nintendo trademark in 'Super Mario' allowed the company to prevent a person from dressing up as Mario when wrestling. ((*Nintendo Co Ltd v Care* [2000] FCA 1538)) ​
 +
 +__//Virgin Enterprises Limited v Klapsas//​(([2001] FCA 1502))__
 +
 +In *[Virgin Enterprises Limited v Klapsas](http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2001/​1502.html)* – Virgin obtained judgement against people trying to sell Virgin limousines or Virgin rentals. The court stressed the large investments made by Virgin in marketing and promoting the brand globally was such that if the defendant ran a Virgin ad, it was likely customers would be confused. ((*Virgin Enterprises Limited v Klapsas* [2001] FCA 1502)) ​
  
-* Super Mario – the Nintendo trademark in Super Mario allowed the company to prevent a person from dressing up as Mario when wrestling. ((*Nintendo Co Ltd v Care* [2000] FCA 1538)) +__//San Remo Macaroni Company Pty Ltd v San Remo Gourmet Coffee Pty Ltd//(([2000] FCA 1842))__
  
-Virgin – obtained judgement against people trying to sell Virgin limousines or Virgin rentalsThe court stressed the large investments made by Virgin in marketing and promoting the brand globally ​was such that if the defendant ran Virgin ad, it was likely customers would be confused. ((*Virgin Enterprises Limited ​Klapsas* [2001] FCA 1502)) +In *[San Remo Macaroni Company Pty Ltd v San Remo Gourmet Coffee Pty Ltd](http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2000/​1842.html)* - there was a serious question to be tried as to whether the use of SAN REMO on coffee machines infringed the (potentially) well-known trade mark for 'San Remo' pasta. Note this decision was made with some reluctance. ((*San Remo Macaroni Company Pty Ltd San Remo Gourmet Coffee Pty Ltd* [2000] FCA 1842)) 
  
-* San Remo - there was a serious question to be tried as to whether the use of SAN REMO on coffee machines infringed the (potentially) well-known trade mark for SAN REMO pasta. Note this decision was made with some reluctance. ((*San Remo Macaroni Company Pty Ltd v San Remo Gourmet Coffee Pty Ltd* [2000] FCA 1842) ))  
  
 +Whether goods are unrelated or not closely related is a question of degree. The less ‘unrelated’ the goods or services are, the more likely that trade mark infringement will be made out.  For example, PUMA for use on beer or CADBURY for use with respect to motorcycles. The use must indicate a connection with the owner.
  
-Whether goods are unrelated or not closely related is a question of degree. The less ‘unrelated’ the goods or services are, the more likely that trade mark infringement will be made out.  For example, PUMA for use on beer or CADBURY for use with respect to motorcycles. ​+__//​Coca-Cola Co v All-Fect Distributors Ltd//​(([1999] FCA 1721))__
  
-The use must indicate a connection with the owner. ​In *Coca-Cola Co v All-Fect Distributors Ltd*, (([1999] FCA 1721)) the court held that cola lollies would not give rise to consumers questioning whether there was a connection between Coca-Cola and the lollies.  ​+In *[Coca-Cola Co v All-Fect Distributors Ltd](http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1999/​1721.html)*, (([1999] FCA 1721)) the court held that cola lollies would not give rise to consumers questioning whether there was a connection between Coca-Cola and the lollies.  ​
  
 This connection can arise: This connection can arise:
Line 92: Line 105:
  
  
-Finally, the owner'​s interests must be adversely affected. Usually quite easy to show harm at least by arguing their capacity to use or distinguish their items has diminished due to the defendant’s use of the mark. Makes it harder for the TM owner to expand ​it’s ​market. Harm can occur in two ways:+Finally, the owner'​s interests must be adversely affected. Usually ​it is quite easy to show harm at least by arguing their capacity to useor distinguish their items has diminished due to the defendant’s use of the mark. Makes it harder for the trade mark owner to expand ​its market. Harm can occur in two ways:
  
  
Line 104: Line 117:
 ### Use ### Use
  
-Not all use constitutes trade mark infringement. A person will only infringe a trade mark if they ‘use’ a protected mark as a trade mark – this is def must use a protected mark or very similar mark in the course of trade as an attempt to distinguish their goods or services for another. ((*Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd* (1963) 109 CLR 407)) An infringement will not be made out if a mark is used but not to distinguish. ​ The alleged infringing trade mark must be used or intended to be used as a trade mark in the course of trade – to distinguish one person’s goods/​services from another. ((//TMA// s 17)) The trade mark must be used or intended to be used physically in relation to goods or services. ((//TMA// s 7))+Not all use constitutes trade mark infringement. A person will only infringe a trade mark if they ‘use’ a protected mark as a trade mark – a defendant ​must use a protected mark or very similar mark in the course of trade as an attempt to distinguish their goods or services for another. ((*Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd* (1963) 109 CLR 407)) An infringement will not be made out if a mark is used but not used to distinguish. ​ The alleged infringing trade mark must be used or intended to be used as a trade mark in the course of trade – to distinguish one person’s goods/​services from another. ((//TMA// s 17)) The trade mark must be used or intended to be used physically in relation to goods or services. ((//TMA// s 7))
  
-A registered trade mark is likely to amount to use as a mark if the manner in which it has been employed does not serve some other purpose – it is a descriptive term, it serves some functional requirement or to communicate some other message. Ordinarily, the use of an invented word or words will amount to use as a trade mark but not always – even invented word or words used out of context can be taken by consumers as suggestive of some quality other than commercial origin or descriptive to some degree. ​+A registered trade mark is likely to amount to use as a mark if the manner in which it has been employed does not serve some other purpose – it is a descriptive term, it serves some functional requirement or to communicate some other message. Ordinarily, the use of an invented word or words will amount to use as a trade mark but not always – even an invented word or words used out of context can be taken by consumers as suggestive of some quality other than commercial origin or descriptive to some degree. ​ 
 + 
 +__//Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd//​(([1963] HCA 66))__
  
 Kitto J in *Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd* held:​(([1963] HCA 66)) Kitto J in *Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd* held:​(([1963] HCA 66))
Line 112: Line 127:
 >[T]he purpose and the only purpose that can be seen in the appearance of the little man on the screen is that which unites the quickly moving series of pictures as a whole, namely the purpose of conveying by a combination of pictures and words a particular message about the qualities of Shell petrol. ​ This fact makes it … quite certain that no viewer would ever pick out any of the individual scenes … and say to himself: “There I see something that the Shell people are showing me as being a mark by which I may know that any petrol in relation to which I see it used is theirs. ​ And one may fairly affirm with even greater confidence that the viewer would never infer from the films that every one of the forms which the oil drop figure takes appears there as being a mark which has been chosen to serve the specific purpose of branding petrol in reference to its origin. >[T]he purpose and the only purpose that can be seen in the appearance of the little man on the screen is that which unites the quickly moving series of pictures as a whole, namely the purpose of conveying by a combination of pictures and words a particular message about the qualities of Shell petrol. ​ This fact makes it … quite certain that no viewer would ever pick out any of the individual scenes … and say to himself: “There I see something that the Shell people are showing me as being a mark by which I may know that any petrol in relation to which I see it used is theirs. ​ And one may fairly affirm with even greater confidence that the viewer would never infer from the films that every one of the forms which the oil drop figure takes appears there as being a mark which has been chosen to serve the specific purpose of branding petrol in reference to its origin.
  
-In *Johnson & Johnson Australia Pty Ltd v Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd*, (([1991] FCA 310)) it was held that Johnson & Johnson had only used CAPLETS ​in a descriptive sense as to shape and dosage and not as indicative of origin or identity.+__//Johnson & Johnson Australia Pty Ltd v Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd//​(([1991] FCA 310))__ 
 + 
 +In *[Johnson & Johnson Australia Pty Ltd v Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd](http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1991/​310.html)*, (([1991] FCA 310)) it was held that Johnson & Johnson had only used '​caplets' ​in a descriptive sense as to shape and dosage and not as indicative of origin or identity.
  
  
 **Video overview by Annabel Burton on [Use as a Trade Mark and Johnson & Johnson](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=fO5T1o9Yl9E)** **Video overview by Annabel Burton on [Use as a Trade Mark and Johnson & Johnson](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=fO5T1o9Yl9E)**
  
 +__//Top Heavy v Killin//(( (1996) 34 IPR 282))__
  
 +In *Top Heavy v Killin*, (( (1996) 34 IPR 282)) the words 'Chill out' were not indications of the provenance of the T-shirts. The message which the mark conveyed in general terms is an exhortation to the reader to relax. Coca-Cola could thus not assert trade mark infringement.
  
-In *Top Heavy Killin*, ​(( (199634 IPR 282)) the words CHILL OUT were not indications of the provenance of the T-shirts. The message which the mark conveyed in general terms is an exhortation to the reader to relax. Coca-Cola could thus not assert trade mark infringement.+__//Mark Foy’s Ltd Davies Co-op Co Ltd//(([1956] HCA 41))__
  
-In *Mark Foy’s Ltd v Davies Co-op Co Ltd*, (([1956] HCA 41)) Williams J held that the trade mark TUB HAPPY was capable of registration. He said:+In *[Mark Foy’s Ltd v Davies Co-op Co Ltd](http://​www7.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​1956/​41.html)*, (([1956] HCA 41)) Williams J held that the trade mark 'Tub Happy' ​was capable of registration. He said:
  
->‘Any reference that the words TUB HAPPY have to the character or quality of articles of clothing is very remote. ​ They are in the nature of a coined phrase. ​ Inanimate objects including articles of clothing cannot have the character or quality of happiness whether they are in a tub or not.’+>‘Any reference that the words 'Tub Happy' ​have to the character or quality of articles of clothing is very remote. ​ They are in the nature of a coined phrase. ​ Inanimate objects including articles of clothing cannot have the character or quality of happiness whether they are in a tub or not.’
  
-Since TUB HAPPY was not being used to describe the qualities of the product (washability,​ freshness, cheapness), it could be registered as a trade mark.+Since 'Tub Happy' ​was not being used to describe the qualities of the product (washability,​ freshness, cheapness), it could be registered as a trade mark.
  
 ### Substantial Identity and Deceptive Similarity ### Substantial Identity and Deceptive Similarity
  
-The phrases '​substantial identity'​ and '​deceptive similarity'​ hold the same meaning as outlined in the previous chapter, ​trade mark registration.+The phrases '​substantial identity'​ and '​deceptive similarity'​ hold the same meaning as outlined in the previous chapter, ​Trade Mark Registration.
  
 Substantially identical requires a side by side comparison, having regard to the similarities and difference between the essential features. ((*Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd* [1963] HCA 66])) Deceptive similarity involves trade marks that so nearly resemble each other that they are likely to deceive or cause confusion. ((//TMA// s 10)) Substantially identical requires a side by side comparison, having regard to the similarities and difference between the essential features. ((*Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd* [1963] HCA 66])) Deceptive similarity involves trade marks that so nearly resemble each other that they are likely to deceive or cause confusion. ((//TMA// s 10))
  
-In *Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd*, (([2009] FCA 606)) the registered trade marks, label and words MALT BALLS were sufficiently different from MALTEASERS, and purely descriptive.+__//Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd//​(([2009] FCA 606))__ 
 + 
 +In *[Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd](http://​www7.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​viewdoc/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2009/​606.html)*, (([2009] FCA 606)) the registered trade marks, label and words 'Malt Balls' ​were sufficiently different from '​Malteasers'​, and purely descriptive.
  
  
Line 142: Line 163:
 ## Types of Trade Mark Dilution ## Types of Trade Mark Dilution
  
-Dilution in the United States and European Union does not require confusion between two trade marks. Instead, blurring and tarnishment ​will amount to dilution. The Australian infringement provisions bear more similarity to passing off, and there is no explicit or clear link to dilution.+Dilution in the United States and European Union does not require confusion between two trade marks. Instead, blurring and tarnishing ​will amount to dilution. The Australian infringement provisions bear more similarity to passing off, and there is no explicit or clear link to dilution.
  
 ### Blurring ​ ### Blurring ​
  
-Results from the unauthorised use of a trade mark which mars the selling power of that trade mark. For example dilution by blurring might occur when the trade mark KODAK is used with respect to motorcycles or the trade mark CADBURY ​is used with respect to chainsaws. ((See for example *Eastman Photographic Materials Co Ltd v John Griffiths Cycle Corp Ltd and Kodak Cycle Co Ltd, Re Trade Mark No 207006 15 RPC 105*)) ​+Blurring is the result of the unauthorised use of a trade mark which mars the selling power of that trade mark. For example dilution by blurring might occur when the trade mark '​Kodak' ​is used with respect to motorcycles or the trade mark '​Cadbury' ​is used with respect to chainsaws. ((See for example *Eastman Photographic Materials Co Ltd v John Griffiths Cycle Corp Ltd and Kodak Cycle Co Ltd, Re Trade Mark No 207006 15 RPC 105*)) ​
  
 ### Tarnishment ### Tarnishment
Line 152: Line 173:
 Occurs when the use of a trade mark results in the tainting or downgrading of the positive associations the trade mark has come to convey. ​ Often it will occur when a trade mark is linked to products of inferior quality or products of an immoral or unwholesome character or where the trade mark is portrayed in an unsavoury context likely to evoke negative thoughts about the trade mark owner. ((See for example *Toys ‘R Us Inc v Akkaoui* (40) USPQ 2d 1836 (ND Cal, 1996) )) Occurs when the use of a trade mark results in the tainting or downgrading of the positive associations the trade mark has come to convey. ​ Often it will occur when a trade mark is linked to products of inferior quality or products of an immoral or unwholesome character or where the trade mark is portrayed in an unsavoury context likely to evoke negative thoughts about the trade mark owner. ((See for example *Toys ‘R Us Inc v Akkaoui* (40) USPQ 2d 1836 (ND Cal, 1996) ))
  
-### Anti-dilution ​Provision?+### Anti-dilution
  
-Courts tend to dislike ​this and try to apply this as a form of consumer protection ​rather than an avenue for companies to protect their brand value The requirement of connection can be read down so that it doesn’t provide protection where there is no likelihood of confusion. ​ If this happens then can’t think of as anti-dilution. ​However the correct characterisation – consumer protection vs anti-dilution is still being debated. In the *Nike Perfume* case, the High Court said it was important to weigh competing interests carefully – ensure consumers aren’t deceived but also allowing them to access competition. The court will be reluctant to block uses of marks that are not likely to cause confusion where the category is so different from where the trade mark in question is not used. +Courts tend to dislike ​anti-dilution provisions ​and favour the use of consumer protection. The requirement of connection can be read down so that it doesn’t provide protection where there is no likelihood of confusion. ​ If this happensthen the situation will not be considered a form of anti-dilution. ​The correct characterisation – consumer protection vs anti-dilution is still being debated. In the *Nike Perfume* case, the High Court said it was important to weigh competing interests carefully – ensure consumers aren’t deceived but also allowing them to access competition. The court will be reluctant to block uses of marks that are not likely to cause confusion where the category is so different from where the trade mark in question is not used. 
  
 ## Prohibition of Certain Acts  ## Prohibition of Certain Acts 
Line 172: Line 193:
  
 According to the //TMA// s 120(2) and (3), there is no infringement where the trade mark is used in related goods or services where there is no likelihood of confusion. This is an informal defence. According to the //TMA// s 120(2) and (3), there is no infringement where the trade mark is used in related goods or services where there is no likelihood of confusion. This is an informal defence.
- 
-### Defences 
  
 Defences to trade mark infringement are found in s 122 of the //TMA//. The table below outlines each of these. ​ Defences to trade mark infringement are found in s 122 of the //TMA//. The table below outlines each of these. ​
Line 188: Line 207:
  
  
-Craig Sherritt on the comparative advertising defence +** Video overview by Craig Sherritt on [The Comparative Advertising Defence](https://​www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKiifGrx1V8)**
-{{youtube>​mKiifGrx1V8?small}}+
  
  
  
  
-Natalie Cruickshanks on TM spare parts defence: ​http://​voice.adobe.com/​v/​NHDUraYrgxQ+**Video overview by Natalie Cruickshanks on [Trade Mark Spare Parts Defence](http://​voice.adobe.com/​v/​NHDUraYrgxQ)**
  
  
  
-The s 122(1)(c) ​spare parts and accessories defence - Andrew Avenell +**Video overview by Andrew Avenell on [The s 122(1)(c) ​Spare Parts and Accessories Defence](https://​www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPJNLX_5fNc)**
-{{youtube>​wPJNLX_5fNc?small}}+
  
  
Line 206: Line 223:
  
  
-**Abigail Hill explains the good faith defence ​in s 122 (1)(b)** +**Video overview by Abigail Hill on [The Good Faith Defence ​in s 122 (1)(b)](https://​www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqDWy9e7XAs)**
- {{youtube>​vqDWy9e7XAs?small}}+
  
  
- +**Video overview by Shelby McGreachan on [The Good Faith Use of Own Name](https://​www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqxoZgsN2Cw)**
-Shelby McGreachan on Good Faith Use of Own Name +
-{{youtube>​xqxoZgsN2Cw?small}}+
  
  
Line 223: Line 237:
  
  
-**Alex Trezise on section ​123** +**Video overview by Alex Trezise on [Section ​123 of the Trade Marks Act](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=UyGxR4a9z3I)**
- {{youtube>UyGxR4a9z3I}}+
  
  
Line 230: Line 243:
 ### Prior Use ### Prior Use
  
-If a person has used a sign that is deceptively similar or substantially identical to the registered trade mark and they have been using concurrently for a period at least before the filing date of the trade mark application,​ then wont be infringing. ((//TMA// s 124)) This is equivalent to //TMA// s 44(4) honest concurrent use provisions.+If a person has used a sign that is deceptively similar or substantially identical to the registered trade mark and they have been using concurrently for a periodat least before the filing date of the trade mark application,​ then they wont be infringing. ((//TMA// s 124)) This is equivalent to //TMA// s 44(4) honest concurrent use provisions.
  
-Registration of a trade mark is not necessary. But if you don’t register a trade mark, other people might be able to in some circumstances,​ especially if you don’t object, register your mark or a deceptively similar or substantially identical mark for the same or similar categories. ​ If this happens defence of prior concurrent use will apply so that the person who was using the mark before the date the registered trade mark was filed, they can continue to use. +Registration of a trade mark is not necessary. But if you don’t register a trade mark, other people might be able to (in some circumstances), especially if you don’t object, register your mark or a deceptively similar or substantially identical mark for the same or similar categories. ​ If this happens defence of prior concurrent use will apply so that the person who was using the mark before the date the registered trade mark was filed, they can continue to use. 
  
-There are limitations on the prior use provision. This includes instances where a person is trading under a particular name but only in business. The person may be allowed to keep using where the reputation exists. For instance if the reputation exists only in Brisbane Australia, the mark can't be use to expand the business beyond. ​+There are limitations on the prior use provision. This includes instances where a person is trading under a particular name but only in business. The person may be allowed to keep using where the reputation exists. For instanceif the reputation exists only in Brisbane Australia, the mark can't be used to expand the business beyond. ​
  
 ## Rectification ## Rectification
- 
-(TMA s 88) 
- 
- 
-Video overview by Nicolas Suzor on [Grounds for Rejection, Opposition or Rectification](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=au3mOq9Abrg&​list=PLa0bKPnUKQrzadmRvIQclmAWk9Wmg1a0P&​index=6). 
  
 Under //TMA// s 88(2), an aggrieved person or the Registrar can apply to the Court for an order that the register be rectified on the following grounds: Under //TMA// s 88(2), an aggrieved person or the Registrar can apply to the Court for an order that the register be rectified on the following grounds:
Line 254: Line 262:
    
 Under s 88(1), if one of these grounds is satisfied, the court can cancel the registration of the trade mark, remove or amend the entry wrongly main or remaining on the Register, or enter any condition or limitation affecting the registration of the trade mark that ought to be entered. Under s 88(1), if one of these grounds is satisfied, the court can cancel the registration of the trade mark, remove or amend the entry wrongly main or remaining on the Register, or enter any condition or limitation affecting the registration of the trade mark that ought to be entered.
 +
 +
 +**Video overview by Nicolas Suzor on [Grounds for Rejection, Opposition or Rectification](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=au3mOq9Abrg&​list=PLa0bKPnUKQrzadmRvIQclmAWk9Wmg1a0P&​index=6)**
 +
 +
  
 In spite of s 120, if a disclaimer has been registered in respect of a part of a registered trade mark, a person does not infringe the trade mark by using that part of the trade mark. ((//TMA// s 122(2) )) In spite of s 120, if a disclaimer has been registered in respect of a part of a registered trade mark, a person does not infringe the trade mark by using that part of the trade mark. ((//TMA// s 122(2) ))
  
  
-**Corrine Leach on 88** +**Video overview by Corrine Leach on [Section ​88 of the Trade Marks Act](https://​www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLKbSmhihUs)**
- {{youtube>​PLKbSmhihUs?small}}+
  
  
  
  
-**Jessica Hine on 88** + 
- {{youtube>​7S5xyWwKB5M?​small}}+**Video overview by Jessica Hine on [Section ​88 of the Trade Marks Act](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=7S5xyWwKB5M)** 
  
  
Line 271: Line 284:
 ## Cross Claims to Trade Mark Infringement ## Cross Claims to Trade Mark Infringement
  
-If trade mark infringement under TMA s 120(1), (2) or (3) is claimed, the defendant can make the following cross-claims:​+If trade mark infringement under //TMA// s 120(1), (2) or (3) is claimed, the defendant can make the following cross-claims:​
  
  
-Not substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark; +That the trade mark is not substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark; 
  
-No use as a trade mark – E.g. *The Panadol Case*, *The Esso Man Case*;  ​+That there has been no use as a trade mark – E.g. *The Panadol Case*, *The Esso Man Case*;  ​
  
-TMA s 122 defences ​to infringement;  ​+A defence ​to infringement ​found in s 122 of the //TMA//;  ​
  
-* Consent (TMA s 123)+* Consent((//TMA// s 123)
  
-* Prior Use (TMA s 124)+* Prior Use((//TMA// s 124)
  
-* The plaintiff’s trade mark is not valid – cross claim for rectification or removal (TMA s 88) +* The plaintiff’s trade mark is not valid – cross claim for rectification or removal((//TMA// s 88) 
  
-* The plaintiff'​s registered trade mark is generic (TMA s 87)+* The plaintiff'​s registered trade mark is generic((//TMA// s 87)
  
-* The plaintiff'​s mark contravened a limitation or condition (TMA s 86) +* The plaintiff'​s mark contravened a limitation or condition;((//TMA// s 86)) and  
  
-* Removal for non-use (TMA s 92) +* Removal for non-use((//TMA// s 92) 
  
  
-Further, the following claims can also be made in TMA s 120(2) infringement cases: +Further, the following claims can also be made in //TMA// s 120(2) infringement cases: 
-  * The defendant'​s use of the mark is not likely to deceive or cause confusion (TMA s 10);+ 
 +  * The defendant'​s use of the mark is not likely to deceive or cause confusion((//TMA// s 10))
   * The defendant'​s use of the mark is not n relation to goods or services of the same description or goods or services that are closely related to the goods or services for which the mark is registered with respect to.   * The defendant'​s use of the mark is not n relation to goods or services of the same description or goods or services that are closely related to the goods or services for which the mark is registered with respect to.
  
  
-Velcro'​s advertisement explains ​the dangers ​of genericide ​for an established brand +**Velcro'​s advertisement explains ​[The Dangers ​of Genericide ​for an Established Brand](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=rRi8LptvFZY)** 
-{{youtube>rRi8LptvFZY}}+ 
  
  
 +**Video overview by Stephanie Derrington on [Genericide](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=Z92wy-deVG0)**
  
-Stephanie Derrington on genericide 
-{{youtube>​Z92wy-deVG0?​small}} 
  
  
 +**Video overview by Ayaka Nakashima Edwards on [Genericide](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=Z6Xm3tNJ7xc)**
  
-Ayaka Nakashima Edwards on genericide 
-{{youtube>​Z6Xm3tNJ7xc?​small}} 
  
  
Line 315: Line 328:
 ## Remedies ## Remedies
  
-TMA s 126 gives a right to an injunction on any conditions the Court thinks fit, an election between damages (if harm) or an account of profits (if enriched by use of the trade mark) and additional damages where appropriate.+There are a number of remedies available in trade mark infringement cases. Section ​126 of the //TMA// provides ​a right to an injunction on any conditions the Court thinks fit, an election between damages (if harm) or an account of profits (if enriched by use of the trade mark) and additional damages where appropriate.
  
-Where there has been trade mark infringement and the defendant has applied to remove the trade mark under TMA s 92 and the court finds that the trade mark has not been used during the critical period ​ in good faith by the registered owner and there are grounds for removing the trade mark the court may not grant relief to the plaintiff by way of damages or an account of profits in respect of any trade mark infringement that has occurred during the critical period (TMA s 127).+Where there has been trade mark infringement and the defendant has applied to remove the trade mark under //TMA// s 92 and the court finds that the trade mark has not been used during the critical period in good faith by the registered owner and there are grounds for removing the trade mark the court may not grant relief to the plaintiff by way of damages or an account of profits in respect of any trade mark infringement that has occurred during the critical period (//TMA// s 127).
  
  • ausip/trade-mark-infringement.1541120875.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 10 months ago
  • (external edit)