2005 IPSANZ Trade Marks Update - List G Barristers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

S 60 - insufficient reputation • NYLOCAST (polymers, plastics) Nylex Corporation Pty Ltd v Nylacast Limited [2004] ATMO 65 • 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) Cels Enterprises, Inc v Pausewang Nominees Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 51
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.
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 and 32: Deceptively similar - devices (clot
Page 33 and 34: Not deceptively similar - Federal C
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: S 60 - insufficient reputation •
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?