2005 IPSANZ Trade Marks Update - List G Barristers

IPSANZ Trade Marks Update 2005 

Ed Heerey 

Victorian Bar 

Senior Fellow, University of Melbourne Law School

Thanks to Stuart Hohnen of Allens Arthur Robinson, 

for invaluable assistance in reviewing decisions and 

preparing this power point presentation.

Use of TMs on internet – Ward Group v Brodie & Stone 

Ward Group v Brodie & Stone (2005) 215 ALR 716, Merkel J 

• Ward is owner of TM RESTORIA for hair products etc 

• in Australia and other countries, but not in UK. 

• UK websites advertised genuine UK RESTORIA products for 

worldwide supply. 

• Brodie & Stone supplied UK RESTORIA products to websites 

• Ward sued: 

• website proprietors for TM infringement; 

• Brodie & Stone as joint tortfeasors. 

• Ward settled with website proprietors, proceeded against Brodie.


Merkel J: 

• Did the website proprietors use the RESTORIA in Australia? 

• Websites’ advertising of UK RESTORIA products was “not 

specifically targeted or directed at customers in Australia” 

• Notwithstanding that: 

• each webpage listed Australia in a “dropdown” box; 

• one webpage listed prices in Australian dollars.


Merkel J: 

• Mere uploading of a TM on a webpage in one jurisdiction is 

not use of that TM in each jurisdiction where it is 

downloaded. 

• However: 

“if there is evidence that the use was specifically intended to 

be made in, or directed or targeted at, a particular jurisdiction 

then there is likely to be a use in that jurisdiction when the 

mark is downloaded.”


Merkel J: 

• Distinguished Dow Jones v Gutnick: 

• alleged defamation of Gutnik was uploaded overseas but 

made available to subscribers in Victoria; 

• focus of alleged defamation was where damage to 

reputation occurred.


Merkel J: 

• The only sales in Australia were trap purchases by Ward’s 

solicitors. 

• The first use in Australia of the RESTORIA TM was when the 

website proprietors accepted orders placed by the trap purchasers. 

• But for the trap purchases by Ward’s solicitors, no use of the TM by 

the website proprietors would have occurred. 

• As such, Ward’s conduct amounts to consent to the infringing use 

and s 123(1) defence applies.

Use of film title not use as a TM 

Christodoulou v Disney Enterprises Inc [2005] FCA 1401 

• Victor Hugo published “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” in 1831. 

• Christodoulou owned registered TM: THE HUNCHBACK OF 

NOTRE DAME for entertainment services. 

• Disney released various versions of the story under that title. 

• Christodoulou sued for infringement. 

Crennan J: 

• Not use as a TM by Disney to use the title in movie reviews, on 

packaging of DVDs & CDs, website ads or comic strip. 

• Disney merely used the title to describe its versions of Hugo’s story.

Counterfeiting and piracy 

Rip Curl v Phone Lab [2004] FCA 1215, Hely J 

• First prison sentence imposed in Australia arising out of TM 

infringement, for contempt of Court order. 

• Guilty plea to “willful and contumacious” breaches. 

• 1 month imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. 

• Fines over $40,000.

Counterfeiting and piracy 

• Final injunctions limited to 5 years: 

• Louis Vuitton v Kierum [2004] FCA 1584, Finkelstein J 

• NB: LV v Kierum distinguished in Nokia v Truong [2005] FCA 1141, Crennan J 

• Importation of goods bearing TM for sale is use of TM by importer, 

even if goods remain seized by Customs at port: 

• Playboy v You Tao Hong [2004] FCA 1205, Lindgren J 

• Liability of joint tortfeasors for TM infringement: 

• Microsoft v Ezy Loans [2004] FCA 1135, Stone J 

• Ward v Brodie & Stone (2005) 215 ALR 716, Merkel J

S 41 - colour TM distinctive: BP green 

BP v Woolworths (2004) 62 IPR 545, Finkelstein J 

• BP sought TM for colour green “as applied as the 

predominant colour” to service stations in respect of: 

• oils, greases, lubricants, fuels etc 

• maintenance, repairs, service stations, car washes etc 

• Woolworths successfully opposed. 

• BP appealed to Federal Court.


Finkelstein J: 

• A single colour is registrable. 

• Inherent distinctiveness of a colour can be tested both: 

• negatively: whether others would bona fide use it; 

• positively: whether mark intrinsically identifies source. 

• Comprehensive review of US authorities on distinctiveness.


Finkelstein J: 

• Green is not inherently distinctive of BP’s goods and services. 

• Public mostly see colours as decoration, not indicating source. 

• BP must show that it had promoted green as: 

• identifying a particular origin of goods and services; and 

• not as mere decoration. 

• Separate components of a single get-up may be registrable if 

they are separately distinctive. 

• BP’s evidence satisfied these tests.

S 41 - shape TM not distinctive 

Multix Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 51 

Senior Examiner Dunn: 

• Shape not capable of distinguishing 

oven baking/roasting trays. 

• Shape is ordinary and well known. 

• Insufficient evidence of use of the shape as a trade mark 

to establish any acquired distinctiveness. 

• Survey evidence given no weight.

S 41 - shape TM distinctive 

FreshFood Holdings Pte Ltd [2005] ATMO 8 

Hearing Officer Thompson: 

• Jar shape is inherently adapted to 

distinguish coffee under s 41(1). 

• Shape unusual, and not functional. 

• Narrowly specified goods means less chance that other 

traders would need to use the shape. 

• Registrability of shapes no different to words, devices etc. 

• Concocted shape analogous to an invented word.

Section 41 – words capable of distinguishing 

• FRUIT PLUS (fruit based snack bars) 

Trebor Bassett Limited v Henry Jones Foods Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 3 

• ROXIMYCIN (pharmaceuticals) 

Aventis Pharma SA v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 15 

• PICK N MIX FAVOURITES (food) 

Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 29 

• MULTIFIX (electrical and building maintenance) 

Multiplex Ltd v Eastcoast Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 39 

• CHINESE LAUNDRY (household goods, wholesaling 

and retailing) 

Cels Enterprises, Inc v Pausewang Nominees Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 51

Section 41 – words not capable of distinguishing 

• EFILM (digital laboratory services) 

Efilm, LLC [2005] ATMO 33 

• TOTALLY WASHABLE (beds, mattresses etc) 

Kra Mar Pet Supplies Pty Ltd (unreported 22 November 2004) 

• THE WAREHOUSE (retail services) 

The Warehouse Ltd v B&B Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 72

S 58 - Proprietorship: Shahin v ExxonMobil 

Shahin v Exxon [2005] FCA 1278, Lander J 

• Shahin opposed Exxon’s application for ON THE RUN: 

• Registration sought for goods in various classes and for services 

including “convenience stores” in class 42. 

• Before Exxon’s application date Shahin had: 

• made plans to use ON THE RUN for convenience stores; 

• registered it as a business name in SA and NSW; 

• handed flyers to consumers bearing the name; and 

• erected an A-frame on site reading ON THE RUN.

S 58 - Proprietorship: Shahin v ExxonMobil 

Lander J: 

• Mere intention to use a TM is not enough for proprietorship. 

• Shahin’s flyer and A-frame were merely evidence of an 

intention to conduct a business under the name in the future. 

• No evidence there was any intention to use the name to 

distinguish goods or services from those of other persons. 

• Clear distinction between conducting a business under a 

name and using a mark in respect of goods and services. 

• No intention to brand goods with the mark.

S 44(3)(b) – “other circumstances” 

Richard James Pty Ltd v Grant Oliver Investments [2005] ATMO 18 

Senior Examiner Dunn: 

v 

(clothing) 

• s 44(1) opposition made out, no honest concurrent use, but 

applicant’s mark registrable due to “other circumstances”: 

• Parties in disparate men’s and women’s clothing markets; 

• Availability of passing off & s 52 TPA action by applicant if 

opponent moved into women’s clothing.

S 43 – “DIANA’S LEGACY IN ROSES” 

McCorquodale v Masterson (2004) 63 IPR 582 

• Bonnie Masterson of 

Tulsa, Oklahoma, applied for 

this TM in respect of roses. 

• The estate of Princess 

Diana opposed, without 

success, (52 IPR 264) and 

appealed to Federal Court.

S 43 – “DIANA’S LEGACY IN ROSES” 

Kenny J, allowing opposition under s 43: 

• Masterson did not appear or give evidence or submissions. 

• The mark connotes a reference to Princess Diana, but that of 

itself is insufficient for s 43. 

• The evidence provided to the Court (and not to the Registrar) 

showed that, before the priority date, Princess Diana and her 

Estate had licensed the use of her name for the sale of roses 

and other products in Australia for charitable activities. 

• The mark would bespeak an association with the Estate.

Substantially identical 

• NAGS v 

Mitchell International, Inc v National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 54 

• NYLOCAST v NYLACAST 

Nylex Corporation Pty Ltd v Nylacast Limited [2004] ATMO 65 

• i-CONTROL v ICONTROL 

Ivolve Pty Ltd v H.P.M. Industries Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 16

Deceptively similar – Full Federal Court

Deceptively similar – Full Federal Court 

Melbourne Chinese Press Pty Ltd & Anor v Australian Chinese 

Newspapers Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 201 

ACN’s Registered TM: MCP’s title: 

“Oh Chow Sun Pao” v “Oh Chow Yat Pao” 

(Australian Daily Newspaper) (Australian New Newspaper) 

Conti J: deceptively similar, infringement. 

Wilcox, Kiefel and Bennett JJ: 

• Although third character different in appearance, sound and meaning, 

deceptive similarity was supported by evidence that a Chinese reader 

sees all four characters as a single graphic. 

• Also, both marks were in Li Shu style of caligraphy.

Deceptively similar – Federal Court 

• PROTIVITI v PROBITI (business consulting services) 

Protiviti Inc v Probiti Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1114, Heerey J (NB only interlocutory) 

• V 

(audiovisual entertainment equipment) 

NEC Corporation v Punch Video(s) Pte Ltd [2005] FCA 1126, Branson J (appeal from opposition)

Deceptively similar – Federal Magistrates Court 

Nickhun Pty Ltd v Grifkam Pty Ltd [2004] FMCA 994 

• Infringement 

(caravans) 

v

Deceptively similar – family of TMs 


NYLAFLEX, NYLAFLAT, NYLADUCT, 

NYLATEX, NYLADAMP, NYLAMAT, 

NYLASORB, NYLABAR, NYLA, NYLAFLO v NYLACAST 

(polymers, plastics) 

• Hearing Officer Skivington: 

• NYLACAST not deceptively similar to any single cited TM. 

• But, NYLACAST deceptively similar to the whole family of TMs. 

• However s 44 opposition rejected due to honest concurrent use.

Deceptively similar - words 

• BICOR v TRICOR (pharmaceuticals) 

Merck KGaA v Fournier Industrie Et Sante [2004] ATMO 52 

• MCDONALDS marks consisting of prefix MC v 

MCCHINA (food) 

McDonalds Corporation v Sheli Lubowski [2004] ATMO 56 

• LE MANS ADELAIDE v ADELAIDE LE MANS (alcoholic 

drinks, beer v beers, mineral etc waters) 

Automobile Club De L'Ouest De La France v Kats & Gardiakos [2005] ATMO 19 

• MONOPOLY v LIVE-OPOLY (games) 

Hasbro Inc v Imagination Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 43

Deceptively similar – words and devices 

• TIGER BALM (medicinal v TIGER PLAST (bandages etc) 

preparations etc) 

Haw Par Corporation Limited v The Thai Enterprises Limited [2004] ATMO 57 

• DOLPHINS v (clothing, swimwear 

(protective excluding protective 

swimwear) swimwear) 

Chris-Telle Pty Ltd v Australian Swimming Inc [2004] ATMO 60

Deceptively similar - devices 

(clothing, computer related products etc) 

Microsoft Corporation v Matthew James Kruger [2004] ATMO 59) 

v

Deceptively similar - devices 

(food) 

v 

Podravka Prehrambena Industrija DD v Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcyjno Handlowe "Prymat" Ryszard 

Lechowski 64 IPR 414

Not deceptively similar – Federal Court 

Beecham Group Plc v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 838 

(currently on appeal) 

• MACLEANS v 

Emmett J: 

• MAXCLEAN used as a TM. 

• But, MAXCLEAN not deceptively similar to MACLEANS: 

• Consists of two separable words; 

• Pronounced with differently stressed syllables. 

• Disposed to treat COLGATE MAXCLEAN as composite 

TM, but unnecessary to decide.


Kowa Company Ltd v NV Organon [2005] FCA 1282 

• Goods: pharmaceuticals 

Lander J: 

LIVALO v LIVIAL 

• Not deceptively similar, section 44 and 60 oppositions rejected 

• Also, reputation at priority date not established 

• “Prescription drugs are not likely to be confused with each other 

even when they are sold under a mark which is similar sounding 

or looking to a mark of another drug.”


Health World Limited v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 5 

Cooper J: 

• Not deceptively similar, s 60 opposition rejected. 

• S 42(b) & s 52 TPA opposition rejected. 

v

Not deceptively similar - words 

• ZACTIN v ZANTHIN (nutritional supplements v 

pharmaceutical treatments for depressive disorders) 

Merck KGaA v U.S. Neutraceuticals LLC [2005] ATMO 6 

• AMGEN v ANGENE (pharmaceuticals) 

Amgen Inc v Bionomics Limited [2005] ATMO 23 

• DIACOR v DIASTOR (pharmaceuticals) 

Rath v Biofarma [2004] ATMO 55 

• GUY LAROCHE v ROBERT LA ROCHE (clothing, footwear, 

headgear, watches, leather goods etc v spectacles) 

Societe Guy Laroche v Uniopt GmbH [2005] ATMO 54

Not deceptively similar - words 

• YOWIE v TIM THE YOWIE MAN (various goods) 

Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Timothy Warwick Bull [2004] ATMO 74 

• TIMBERLAND v TIMBERLINE (various goods) 

Timberland Company v Woolworths Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 12 

• CLICKZIP v MULTIX QUICK ZIP (plastic bags, wraps etc.) 

International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd v Multix Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 26 

• MULTIPLEX v MULTIFIX (building construction services) 

Multiplex Ltd v Eastcoast Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 39 

• BICKFORD’S AQUAPURA; AQUAPURA v ePURE*AQUA 

(bottled water) 

Bickford's Australia Pty Ltd v Belridge Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 53

Not deceptively similar - words and devices 

• ESTABAN v (perfume, cosmetics) 

Esteban v Digital Crown Holdings (HK) Ltd [2004] ATMO 61 

• v QUANTA 

(electronic, electrical and telecommunication goods) 

ACP Masthead Nominees Pty Ltd v Bourne Properties Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 62 

• PAJERO v (sporting goods) 

Mitsubishi Jodosha Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Jason International Inc (2004) 64 IPR 146

Not deceptively similar – words and devices 

• FRUIT BURST v FRUIT PLUS (fruit based 


snack bars) 

• ORLANE v (personal care/beauty products) 

Orlane SA v Seri Somboonsakdikul [2005] ATMO 41 (2 August 2005)

Not deceptively similar – words and devices 

• MCWILLIAMS v (wine) 

McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd v Darryl Murray Cousins, Adrienne Mary Cousins, Neil Stuart Smith & 

Joan Smith [2005] ATMO 24 

• RED NOSE DAY v (clothing) 

National SIDS Council of Australia Ltd v Xtreme Sports Importacao Exportacao E Comercio 

LTDA [2005] ATMO 50

Not deceptively similar - devices 

v 

Wiley Publishing Inc v Moondance Pictures Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 70 

v 

(various goods) 

(housing design, building (conveyancing services) 

and sale services) 

Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Ownit Conveyancing Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 47

Similar goods 

• Nutritional supplements AND pharmaceutical treatments for 

depressive disorders - Merck KGaA v U.S. Neutraceuticals LLC [2005] ATMO 6 

• Fruit snack bars AND chocolate and confectionary 


• Alcoholic drinks, beer AND mineral and aerated waters 

Automobile Club De L'Ouest De La France v Chris Kats & Peter Gardiakos [2005] ATMO 19 

• Clothing and swimwear excluding protective swimwear AND 

protective swimwear 

Chris-Telle Pty Ltd v Australian Swimming Inc [2004] ATMO 60

Not similar goods or services 

• Electrical apparatus v computer automation 

software for plant management 

Ivolve Pty Ltd v H.P.M. Industries Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 16 

• Nursing, community aged care etc v 

chiropractic services, x-ray procedures and 

diagnosis etc Chiropractors' Association of Australia (National) Ltd v 

Kincare (Holdings) Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 10 

• Computer equipment excluding power supplies 

v power supply equipment for, eg computers 

American Power Conversion Corporation v Tecom Resources [2004] ATMO 58

Goods and services not closely related 

• Household goods, wholesaling and retailing of household 

v footwear being shoes and boots 

Cels Enterprises, Inc v Pausewang Nominees Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 51 

• Magazines v wholesale and retail of magazines 

L.F.P Inc v Hustler Australia Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 30 

• Spectacles v clothing, footwear, headgear, watches and 

leather and goods made of leather such as handbags 

Societe Guy Laroche v Uniopt GmbH [2005] ATMO 54

S 60 - sufficient reputation 

• MONOPOLY (games) - Hasbro Inc v Imagination Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 43 

• NAUTICA (clothes v towels, manchester etc) 

Nautica Apparel Inc v Dimmey Stores Pty Ltd (unreported 22 March 2005) 

• MORTGAGE HOUSE (insurance, financial affairs) - Mortgage 

House of Australia Pty Limited v Mortgage House International Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 17 

• FORTE (dropbolts, latches etc) - Centor Products Pty Ltd v D & D Group Pty 

Limited [2005] ATMO 20 

• HUSTLER (magazines etc) - L.F.P Inc v Hustler Australia Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 

30 (24 June 2005); L.F.P Inc v Supre Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 31

S 60 - sufficient reputation 

• BILLABONG (clothing) 

GSM (Trademarks) Pty Ltd v Blue Eye Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 44 

• NAGS (glass products/services) 

Mitchell International v National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 54 

• TIGER BALM (medicinal products) 


• MCDONALDS trade marks (food) 


• APC (power supply protection apparatus) 

American Power Conversion v Tecom Resources Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 58 

• VEGETA (gourmet stock) 

Podravka I DD v Przedsiebiorstwo (2004) 64 IPR 414

S 60 - insufficient reputation 

• LIVALO (pharmaceuticals) 

Kowa Company Ltd v NV Organon [2005] FCA 1282 

• ICONTROL (software for plant management) 

Ivolve Pty Ltd v H.P.M. Industries Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 16 

• PILGRIM (clothing) 

Richard James Pty Ltd v Grant Oliver Investments Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 18 

• UNIVERSAL INK JET REFILL SYSTEM (ink jet refills) 

Computer Business Works Inc v Dylan Mark Johnston [2005] ATMO 14 

• DOLPHINS (protective swimwear) 

Chris-Telle Pty Ltd v Australian Swimming Inc [2004] ATMO 60 

• ESTABAN (cosmetics, perfumes) 

Esteban v Digital Crown Holdings (HK) Ltd [2004] ATMO 61

S 60 - insufficient reputation 

• NYLOCAST (polymers, plastics) 


• ALL WE LEAVE BEHIND ARE MEMORIES (demolition of buildings) - 

Belwood Contracting Pty Ltd v Klesteel Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 71 

• CONEXUS (webserver hosting and e-commerce) 

Internex Australia Pty Ltd v Conexus Pty Limited [2005] ATMO 7 

• LE MANS ADELAIDE (mineral and aerated waters) - Automobile Club De L'Ouest 

De La France (ACO) v Chris Kats & Peter Gardiakos [2005] ATMO 19 

• GUY LAROCHE (clothing, luxury goods) 

Societe Guy Laroche v Uniopt GmbH [2005] ATMO 54 

• CHINESE LAUNDRY (household goods) 


S 60 & 42(b) – Cadbury FAVOURITES 

Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 

29 

• Cadbury opposed Effem’s 

application for Pick’n’Mix Favourites device. 

Hearing Officer Williams: 

• S 60 and 42(b) opposition failed because Cadbury 

did not show any reputation in FAVOURITES separate 

from CADBURY or colour purple. 

• However, imposed a condition of registration not to use 

FAVOURITES in yellow and with any purple background.

S 42(b) - TM contrary to law - copyright 

Hisense Corporation v Zheng Shi [2005] 

• Hisense opposed Mr Shi’s 

application to register: 

• Hisense proved ownership of copyright in the device, and 

thus established opposition on the basis that Mr Shi’s use of 

the TM would infringe its copyright. 

• Opposition also established under s 58 and 59.

S 42(b) - TM contrary to law - s 52 TPA 

Oppositions established under s 42(b) and NOT s 60: 

• LE MANS ADELAIDE v ADELAIDE LE MANS 

Hearing Officer McDonagh: 

• Insufficient reputation for s 60, but sufficient notoriety for s 42(b) 

Automobile Club De L'Ouest De La France v Chris Kats & Peter Gardiakos [2005] ATMO 19 

v MARKO 

Marko Polo Foods Pty Ltd v Benino Fine Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 32

S 42(b) – TM not contrary to law – Olympic Insignia 

Australian Olympic Committee Inc v Schwarzkopf & Henkel GmbH [2005] 

ATMO 37 

Hearing Officer McDonagh: 

• Use of OLYMPIA (for soaps, cosmetics etc) would not 

breach section 36(1) of the Olympics Insignia Protection 

Act 1987. 

• Opposition also rejected under ss 43 and 60.

S 42(b) - TM not contrary to law - s 52 TPA 

MCDONALDS v MCCHINA 


BELLE v BELLE (magazines v tapware, baths etc) 

ACP Masthead Nominees Pty Ltd v Bourne Properties Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 62 

AMGEN v ANGENE 

Amgen Inc v Bionomics Limited [2005] ATMO 23 

v UNIVERSAL INK JET REFILL SYSTEM 

Computer Business Works Inc v Dylan Mark Johnston [2005] ATMO 14


• TIGER BALM v TIGER PLAST 


• CHINESE LAUNDRY v CHINESE LAUNDRY 



RED NOSE DAY v 

National SIDS Council of Australia Ltd v Xtreme Sports Importacao Exportacao E Comercio LTDA 

[2005] ATMO 50 

v 

Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Ownit Conveyancing Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 47

2005 IPSANZ Trade Marks Update - List G Barristers

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?