2005 IPSANZ Trade Marks Update - List G Barristers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 [<strong>2005</strong>] 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.
Page 1 and 2: IPSANZ Trade Marks Update 2005 Ed H
Page 3 and 4: Use of TMs on internet - Ward Group
Page 9 and 10: Counterfeiting and piracy Rip Curl
Page 11 and 12: S 41 - colour TM distinctive: BP gr
Page 13 and 14: S 41 - colour TM distinctive: BP gr
Page 15 and 16: S 41 - shape TM distinctive FreshFo
Page 17 and 18: Section 41 - words not capable of d
Page 19 and 20: S 58 - Proprietorship: Shahin v Exx
Page 21 and 22: S 43 - “DIANA’S LEGACY IN ROSES
Page 23 and 24: Substantially identical • NAGS v
Page 25 and 26: Deceptively similar - Full Federal
Page 27 and 28: Deceptively similar - Federal Magis
Page 29 and 30: Deceptively similar - words • BIC
Page 31: Deceptively similar - devices (clot
Page 35 and 36: Not deceptively similar - Federal C
Page 37 and 38: Not deceptively similar - words •
Page 39 and 40: Not deceptively similar - words and
Page 41 and 42: Not deceptively similar - devices v
Page 43 and 44: Not similar goods or services • E
Page 45 and 46: S 60 - sufficient reputation • MO
Page 47 and 48: S 60 - insufficient reputation •
Page 49 and 50: S 60 & 42(b) - Cadbury FAVOURITES C
Page 51 and 52: S 42(b) - TM contrary to law - s 52
Page 53 and 54: S 42(b) - TM not contrary to law -
Page 55: S 42(b) - TM not contrary to law -

2005 IPSANZ Trade Marks Update - List G Barristers

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?