• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The 12 November 2009 decision in Alcon Inc v Bausch & Lomb (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1299 focuses almost exclusively on whether the defendant had used the plaintiff’s trade mark ‘as a trade mark’. Alcon has a registered trade mark ‘BSS’ for ophthalmic irrigation products and, not surprisingly, objected to Bausch & Lomb (BL) using the expression ‘BSS’ on its labels for its products. The case revolved primarily around the issues of whether BL had used the trade mark as a trade mark and related issues as to whether the trade mark should remain registered, primarily on the grounds that it was not distinctive.

Whether BL was using the letters BSS as a trade mark required a detailed analysis of the context of that use. Set out below are the findings of the Judge.

155.          The following factors are relevant to the present question:

(a) The letters “BSS” appear in block white letters in the top section of the label with the royal blue background. The trade mark “AQSIA™” appears in the same part of that label. The letters used to form “AQSIA™” are larger than those used to form “BSS”. This part of the label is intended to be separate from and more prominent than the rest of the label. The impression created by the positioning of “AQSIA” and “BSS” is that this part of the label is dealing with branding of the product;

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Bah! No trade marks decisions of significance have been handed down by the Federal or High Court in weeks, so I am resorting to a Federal Court case my firm acted in earlier this year that resulted in a non-confidential settlement entirely in our client’s favour. The settlement was deliberately not confidential so as to send a loud signal to other member organisations in the federation of Japan Karate Associations throughout the world not to help themselves to intellectual property belonging to head office in Japan.

In Japan Karate Association v. Japan Karate Association of Australia (JKA) Pty Ltd (Federal Court No. VID 1039 of 2008) Nicholas Weston Lawyers & Trade Marks Attorneys, the law firm behind the Australian Trade Marks Law Blog, acted for the Applicant, the Japan Karate Association (“JKA”). JKA was established in Japan in 1958 to promote the martial art of karate (“the JKA business”) and since about 1963 had conducted that business throughout the world by:

• providing karate education, exams and training to pupils:
• training, ranking and accrediting karate instructors;
• sponsoring accredited instructors to travel overseas to teach and promote   karate;
• arranging and conducting karate tournaments and exhibitions;
• producing and selling publications and videos/DVDs relating to karate;
• producing and selling clothing and equipment for use in karate.

(“the JKA goods and services”).

JKA had also used the name NIHON KARATE KYOKAI or its English translation JAPAN KARATE ASSOCIATION and the acronym JKA in relation to the JKA business and the JKA goods and services since around 1963 and since at least 1958, used a “Sun and Moon” device (illustrated below) created by and for JKA in 1958 in relation to the JKA business and the JKA goods and services:

JKA also claimed copyright in the  “Sun and Moon” device. Collectively, “the JKA marks” comprised the name JAPAN KARATE ASSOCIATION, the acronym JKA and the “Sun and Moon” device.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 606   the applicant Mars Australia Pty Ltd (Mars) has manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold a bite-size confectionary called Maltesers in Australia since 1989. The respondent (Sweet Rewards) has imported, distributed and sold a chocolate covered confectionary product known as “Malt Balls” since about the middle of 2005, principally through Target (in orange jars) but also through and Kmart, Coles, Franklins, Priceline, BI-LO, IGA, Dimmeys and a number of other discount stores (in red jars). The word Maltesers does not appear on the Malt Balls packaging. They are delicious, make you fat and rot your teeth. If you are a film critic, you can hold them in your hand until slightly molten then hurl them at the movie screen. Or not. Anyway, the red jars and the Mars packaging looked like this:

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Facebook has announced that it will begin offering personalised username URLs to its users. On a first-come, first-served basis commencing 13 June, 2009 Facebook users are able to register personalised domain names such as www.facebook.com/yourname for their Facebook pages. Previously, a user’s Facebook URL was comprised of randomly assigned numbers.

Nicholas Weston, the law firm behind the Australian Trade Marks Law Blog comments that offering such services is a new potential opportunity for trade marks infringers and cyber-squatters. These procedures may be abused by reserving your – or your client's - trade marks as their username and thereby hold themselves out as being affiliated with the genuine trade mark owner. For example, any particular user might register www.facebook.com/yourtrademark.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No 2) [2009] FCA 256, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, responsible for the well known sheepskin boots sold under the ‘UGG’ brand, has been successful in its application for summary judgement for trade mark infringement of its composite trade mark No. 785466. The Court has postponed making an order with respect to compensatory damages until further supporting evidence is presented. 

As to its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief for copyright infringement, passing off and trade practices breaches Deckers was unsuccessful. Deckers has become renowned for aggressive enforcement of its intellectual property rights. In view of this positive finding of trade mark infringement, only time will tell whether it continues to pursue these other causes of action, particularly a damages claim for flagrant copyright infringement under Section 115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

In E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCAFC 27 the Full Federal Court has affirmed a first-instance decision to remove E & J Gallo’s ‘BAREFOOT’ trade mark from the Register for non use, thus confirming that Lion Nathan has the right to market its 'BAREFOOT RANDLER' beer product.  Whilst confirming the first instance decision to remove the 'BAREFOOT' trade mark, the Appeal Court overturned the Trial Judge's finding that beer and wine are not ‘goods of the same description’ and held that Lion Nathan was infringing the ‘BAREFOOT’ trade mark during the 6 month period which it remained on the Register and Lion Nathan had sold its ‘BAREFOOT RADLER’ beer. 

So although ultimately losing their trade mark, the Appeal may have proven worthwhile for E & J Gallo.  This will be clearer when the question of remedies for the period Lion Nathan was infringing Gallo's trade mark is resolved.  On the other hand, the finding that wine and beer are 'goods of the same description' has opened the door for Lion Nathan to bring its own infringement action.

Background

E & J Gallo Winery (Gallo) is a large wine-producing company incorporated in the United States whom in 2005 acquired the share capital in a company trading under the name ‘Barefoot Cellars’. As part of that deal they acquired the Australian ‘BAREFOOT’ trade mark for wine in Class 33. Although ‘BAREFOOT’ was very successful in the United States, only a very limited quantity of the wine had been sold by Beach Avenue Wholesalers Pty Ltd (BAW) in the Australian market during the period from 7 May 2004 to 8 May 2007 (the non-use period). Importantly, there was no evidence that Gallo, or its predecessor, knew about these sales.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Pioneer KK, the makers of quite well known audio, audio-visual and home entertainment products have had a big win in an application against them for non-use of their trade mark on a range of  goods. In Pioneer Computers Australia Pty Limited v Pioneer KK [2009] FCA 135 (23 February, 2009), the battle lines were drawn between the applicant for removal, Pioneer Computers (‘the new guys’), which used the sign Pioneer on its computer products and Pioneer KK (‘the old guys’), the company that sells the home entertainment products under the Pioneer brand that most of us are probably familiar with.

The problem here was that the old guy’s original registration in Class 9 for Pioneer was quite broad. It included ‘computers, computer peripheral devices, computer keyboards; computer memories; printer for use with computers… computer software’ as well as the home entertainment equipment for which the old guys are known. The new guys started up in late 1996 and had been selling computers and computer products since then with the knowledge of the old guys but the old guys, it seems, have had enough and wish to enforce their strict statutory rights. While they retain registration in respect of computers, they can require the new guys to cease using selling Pioneer computers by relying on s120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Effectively, the provision is a strict liability provision and the old guys would not have to prove confusion and the new guys would have no defence even if there was proof of a lack of confusion. The other infringement provisions in s120(2) and (3) are more conditional and offer opportunities for consideration of the likelihood of confusion. They apply where the defendant’s use is on goods for which the trade mark owner does not have registration.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Bing! Software Pty Ltd v Bing Technologies Pty Limited (No 1) [2008] FCA 1760, Justice Collier in the Federal Court in Brisbane has just handed down a judgment in a case alleging trade mark infringement and a breach of s52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA).

The registered owner of the trade mark ‘Bing!’ won its trade mark infringement action but was unsuccessful in its claims of breaches of the TPA and passing off which, in itself, is an interesting statement about the usefulness of registration compared to relying on passing off principles.

Bing! is registered in Class 9 for ‘Software for the legal profession and other industries and professions not limited in any way to a specific industry or commercial sector’. I think this means software for the legal profession and software for anyone else but the legal profession. The statement reminds me of the way that we can divide the world into two types of people, namely, those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don’t.

The trade mark owner’s primary business is for a Family Court document automation software package. It also has software packages for conveyancing. It calls its software ‘Bing!’

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Two Men and A Truck Aust Pty Ltd v Three Men & A Truck Removals and Storage Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] FMCA 1333 (26 September 2008) [2008] FMCA 1333 the applicant, Two Men And A Truck Australia Pty Limited (Two Men And A Truck), has two Australian Registered Trade Marks, with a priority date of 3 April 2003 in class 39 for: “Transportation, packing and storage of goods including removalist services; transportation and storage of waste including rubbish removal; rental of storage containers”.  One is word mark No. 949361 for “TWO MEN AND A TRUCK” and the other, No. 949362, comprises the following device:

On 11 May 2007 the first respondent adopted the corporate name Three Men & A Truck Removals And Storage Pty Ltd (Three Men & A Truck) and placed an advertisement in the print edition of the Sydney Yellow Pages under the name or trade mark “Three Men & A Truck Removals and Storage Pty Ltd” in the category “Furniture Removals & Storage” as well as printed, issued and used business cards with the following representation of a truck:

Two Men And A Truck alleged that, by doing so, Three Men & A Truck engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and made false representations in contravention of s.53(c) of the Trade Practices Act,  passed off or attempted to pass off its services as having a connection with the applicant or its business and infringed the registered trade marks of the applicant under s.120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Kimberley-Clark Worldwide, Inc v. Goulimis 2008 FCA 1415 (16 September 2008), the applicant (Kimberley-Clark) made an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia and successfully quashed the Registrar’s decision on 17 January 2008. The Registrar had allowed the respondent to register the trade mark HUGGIE MUMMY, classified under Class 35, a service class relating to the “direct selling of baby toddler’s toys, videos, CD’s books, games and accessories”. The applicant and the respondent’s trade marks were not registered in overlapping classes. The reason for the Registrar’s allowance of the respondent’s trade mark registration in the first place was that the Registrar found ‘the respondent’s service and the applicant’s goods have little in common but for the ultimate consumers – parents of babies and toddlers’.

The appeal was made under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)(Act) and heard by Justice Jagot of the Federal Court in Sydney.

The applicant is the registered owner of various trade marks containing the word HUGGIES, with priority dates preceding the respondent’s priority date of 15 November 2007. The HUGGIES trade marks for disposable nappies are well known to the Australian public, and have been used in Australia since 1987 by the applicant’s parent company.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In Disney Enterprises, Inc v Sondavid Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1394 (11 September 2008), Disney sought an order pursuant to s 137(5) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (Act) to restrain the Customs CEO (until further order) from releasing certain goods seized by the Australian Customs Service (notified to Disney on 18 July 2008). Section 137 of the Act is within the date-driven Pt 13 scheme, the object of which is to "protect registered trade marks by making provision allowing the Customs CEO to seize and deal with goods that are imported into Australia if the importation infringes, or appears to infringe, a registered trade mark".

Disney is the registered owner in Australia of various trade marks including MINNIE MOUSE and MICKEY MOUSE in class 25 (which includes clothing) and a mark known as the MINNIE MOUSE device in the same class. The respondent had tried to bring in a commercial consignment of 1180 tops bearing images of Minnie Mouse, the words "Original Minnie", "Original Mickey" and "© Disney". These were seized by Customs under s 133 of the Act. On the applicants giving the usual undertaking as to damages, the orders were made ex parte.

 

Nothing unusual there – pretty boring really – but given that the first MICKEY MOUSE trade mark application (number 71266717) was granted in the United States 80 years ago this week – on 18 September 1928 – and notwithstanding the contentious provenance of the famous character (see HERE and HERE), it is worth a quick look at the beloved rodent’s litigation pedigree, and his contribution to Australian trade marks jurisprudence, which reveals that Mickey does not mind getting the gloves off. Talk about the mouse that roared!

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an act guaranteed to pick a fight with two 800 pound gorillas, an attempt to register the mash-up name ‘GOOGLEBAY’ as a trade mark in Australia has failed. This follows a WIPO Panel decision that the same applicant transfer the domain name <googlebay.com.au> to Google Inc.

Trade Mark Opposition

In Google, Inc v Dmitri Rytsk [2008] ATMO 40 (28 May 2008), an Australian Trade Marks Office Decision published on 8 July 2008, an opposition under section 52 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Act) by Google, Inc to registration of trade mark application 1118972 for GOOGLEBAY in class 35 was upheld with both section 44 (deceptive similarity of the mark in respect of similar services or closely related goods) and section 60 (trade mark deceptively similar to a mark with a reputation in Australia in respect of both related and unrelated goods) grounds were established. Registration was therefore refused.

The Hearing Officer’s analysis was fairly conventional but there are two points of interest to note.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Edwards v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 970 (26 June 2008), Justice Gordon's preamble points out the excessive costs and consumption of Court resources that have been incurred in the case as a consequence of incorrect identification of legal issues. She emphasises that “parties should not be encouraged to bring inapposite claims on the grounds that they are cheaper” because this can backfire. Here, the respondent sought a cheaper avenue for relief by bringing a non-use application before the Trade Marks Office as opposed to bringing a revocation action in the Federal Court. Justice Gordon ordered costs against the respondent for that part of the proceeding that had been misclassified.

Along similar lines, in the recently decided case of E. & J. Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2008] FCA 934 (20 June 2008), discussed on the Australian Trade Marks Law Blog last week, Lion Nathan pleaded that their client had used ‘Barefoot Radler’ as its sign but wanted to argue at trial that the sign was ‘Barefoot Radler’ plus the device of a bare foot. The Court confined them to their defence as pleaded.

These cases highlight, in different ways, the importance of getting the pleadings right from the outset and show that the Court will hold parties responsible for such blunders.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

In E. & J. Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2008] FCA 934 (20 June 2008) , a decision covering a wide range of trade mark issues, Lion Nathan (Lion) has successfully resisted an infringement application and, at the same time, managed to have a competitor’s trade mark removed for non-use. The decision provides some interesting insights into infringement under s120(2), the defence in that provision, a discussion about goods of the same description and, finally, some interesting views on non-use and the exercise of the discretion to let a trade mark stay on the register despite non-use for three years being established.  

Apart from that smorgasbord of legal issues, the case provides a wonderful gem of insight into how Lion Nathan develops its trade marks. On this occasion, the Consumer Insight Manager was at the races and noticed ‘Barefootonbondi’ as the name of one of the horses. The moral of the story is that if you want a cool job with less stress than litigating trade mark law, you should go to the races more often. But I digress. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

In Showtime Management Australia Pty Ltd v Showtime Presents Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 594 (13 June 2008), Austin J., granted an interlocutory application requiring the unsuccessful parties to bring the profits of a Queen tribute act concert tour in South Africa into Australia, to be held securely pending the outcome of proceedings to determine which of the parties to the litigation owns the name and other rights in a business comprising the relevant Queen tribute act and a further such act. The Court also made orders for the respondents to provide detailed sworn accounts and source documents.

The case illustrates the importance of Corporations Act, common law and equitable remedies where IP rights are disputed in consequence of the termination of a joint venture where a company structure (and, in this case, also a trust) is involved. A narrow skill set, or IP-centric approach, may not be appropriate to such cases.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Colorado Group Limited & Anor v Strandbags Group Pty Limited [2008] HCATrans 200 (23 May 2008), the Colorado Group failed to obtain special leave from the High Court to appeal the Full Court of the Federal Court decision reported in the Australian Trade Marks Law Blog article: Colorado Group fails on appeal - Full court messes with the Fink.

As a result, neither party now has exclusive use of the mark "Colorado" in relation to handbags, wallets and purses, and the register will be rectified.

Per Crennan J:

"The applicants seek special leave to appeal in a claim for trademark infringement. The principal defence of the respondent is a counter-claim for rectification of the register in respect of the applicants’ registration of the trademark "Colorado", which is a geographical name. The grounds upon which rectification is sought which are relevant to the present application are that the applicant is not the proprietor of its registered trademark. Alternatively, if it is the proprietor, the mark is not capable of distinguishing certain of the applicants’ goods.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Managing IP World Intellectual Property Survey 2008, which publishes detailed rankings of the leading firms practising intellectual property in each country, has listed Nicholas Weston for the first time since the firm was founded in 2005.

The firm is ranked in two categories: for Trade Mark Prosecution in Australia and for Trade Marks Contentious in Australia. Rankings are based on surveys of clients and recommendations from clients and other practitioners.

According to Managing IP magazine:

"The World IP Survey is not simply a list of the biggest firms, or a list of those that have the biggest case load or are the oldest. Instead it is a qualitative ranking of the leading firms in each category and reveals which firms are rated by their peers for the strength of their expertise and the depth of their ability to service clients."

The IP Handbook 2008, published by Managing IP, includes full results of the survey, stating:

"Clients noted the thoroughness of the firm's paperwork and "attention to detail" ".

No firm can vote for its own inclusion or purchase a listing in the MIP World Intellectual Property Survey 2008 or the IP Handbook, which lists the leading firms in trade marks prosecution and contentious work in 65 jurisdictions. The survey is described by its publisher as “the world’s most detailed and authoritative survey of the IP market."

Details of the survey methodology can be found HERE

Survey results for Asia can be found HERE .

About Managing IP

Managing Intellectual Property is the leading international magazine for IP owners, with more than 8,000 readers across the globe. About two-thirds of readers are senior in-house counsel in multinational companies.

Published 10 times a year, Managing IP provides news, comment, data and analysis. Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Legal Media Group, with offices in Hong Kong, London and New York.

About Nicholas Weston

Founded in 2005, Nicholas Weston is small but mighty Australian law firm delivering trade marks and other commercial legal services to clients worldwide in core sectors of disputes, technology, and brands.

Each professional is a dual qualified lawyer and registered trade marks attorney. Nicholas Weston claims practical implementation of thought leadership. The firm is located on Collins Street, Melbourne in the historic Assembly Hall.

For further details contact Nick Weston or Lea Lewin.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Nicholas Weston, the law firm behind the Australian Trade Marks Law Blog has moved to so-called 'cloud computing' technology architecture with the adoption of the WebTMS browser-based trade mark management system. According to Nicholas Weston, this infrastructure purchase will significantly strengthen this practice area and prove a real asset to the firm.

WebTMS enables Nicholas Weston to offer clients browser-based trade marks portfolio management applications that utilise the same infrastructure powering major US and UK law firms, and US Fortune 500 corporate IP departments. A list of users can be found HERE.

Key Features of WebTMS

The following key features of WebTMS are set out in detail below and can be summarised as follows:

• the most secure, robust and advanced trade mark management and docketing system available and has been used by the world’s leading firms for over 5 years;
• real time access for Clients to the cases Nicholas Weston is handling for them with 24/7 worldwide secure access to a Client's trade mark portfolio details from any computer with an internet connection;
• foreign Agents can update the cases they are handing for Nicholas Weston;
• a repository for all trade mark and intellectual property data, with images and supporting documents;
• database links to the trade marks offices of 12 jurisdictions, for click throughs, data audits and automatic data loading;
• built in trade mark searching for the 12 online trade marks offices, with search results management;
• workflow wizards to maximize efficiency;
• designed by trade mark attorneys for trade mark attorneys, and supported by extensive user input.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recently decided case in the Federal Court, Health World Limited v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 100, amongst other things, highlighted that a recent amendment to the Trade Marks Act 1995 (the Act) removing the requirement that an applicant in a non-use application be an “aggrieved person”, has made it easier to succeed in a non-use application.

Background to the Case

Health World Limited (Health World) had registered in 1996 the words ‘Inner Health’ in respect of ‘pharmaceutical preparations included in this class, including such preparations for promoting the growth and adherence of beneficial intestinal bacteria in humans being goods in class 5’. It successfully marketed a probiotic powder called Inner Health Powder (the Powder). Health World subsequently commenced developing Inner Health Plus Capsules (the Capsules) and applied to register the word mark ‘Inner Health Plus’ on 12 September 2001. In the meantime, Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd (Shin-Sun) registered ‘HealthPlus’ in respect of ‘pharmaceutical products including vitamins and dietary supplements’ in class 5 with a priority date of 7 May 2001.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Mayne Industries Pty Ltd v Advanced Engineering Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 27, Mayne Industries Pty Ltd (Mayne) was the registered owner of ‘a shape kind of sign’ for goods in class 6 described as ‘fence droppers’ comprising ‘a rod bent to an S shape.’ A fence dropper is a galvanised metal article designed to attach to agricultural fences to maintain a constant distance between the horizontal wires, and to act as a substitute for fence posts. Mayne commenced infringement proceedings under s 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Act) against Advanced Engineering Group Pty Ltd (Advanced), the importer of fence droppers containing an S loop substantially identical with the shape of the S loop depicted in the applicant’s trade mark.

Advanced contended that Mayne sought to enforce a monopoly over certain ‘functional features’ and that once the evidence demonstrates that the shape serves some functional significance, use of the shape (the trade mark) cannot be use as a trade mark. Advanced also relied upon a defence under s 25 of the Act that the trade mark contained a sign (the S loop shape) that described a fence dropper that was formerly exploited by Mayne under an expired patent and, under its cross-application, sought to have the Register rectified by cancelling the registration under s 87(1) of the Act.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

In Colorado Group Limited v Strandbags Group Pty Limited [2007] FCAFC 184, the Full Court appeal from the decision at first instance of Finkelstein J., in Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd (2006) 67 IPR 628, [2006] FCA 160 and Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd (No.2) (2006) 69 IPR 281[2006] FCA 880 , the Court again considered two issues, being those of ‘proprietorship’ and ‘inherent distinctiveness’.

By way of background, from 1982, Colorado Group first used the Colorado mark as a word mark on backpacks. From 1987, the word mark in combination with a "simple mountain motif," was applied to shoes. By 1991, Colorado Group had developed a three peaked mountain logo for use in conjunction with the word "Colorado" but until 1997 often used the word alone on bags which appears to be a reference to handbags, shoulder bags and other fashion bags (but it was not used alone on wallets and purses). In 2001 it registered its word mark to cover, amongst other things, bags, wallets, purses, backpacks and belts.

In 1991, the predecessor to Strandbags Group registered "Colorado" with an “Indian head” device as a combination mark in respect of handbags, travelgoods and belts in class 18 and in the years after applied it to an expanded range of goods, among them, backpacks, briefcases, wallets and purses. The word "Colorado" featured in both side’s shopfront designs. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Impact and Virtually Blind blogs report  that “the Second Life Patent and Trademark Office (SLPTO) has opened its doors.” The SLPTO appears to have no connection with the owners of Second Life, Linden Lab.

The SLPTO website states: “We allow you to register, protect, and add value to your Second Life creations to protect your intellectual property rights”. Section 157 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) prohibits use of the words "Trade Marks Office" and "words of similar import" in this jurisdiction. It states:

“(1) A person:

(a) must not:

(i) place, or allow to be placed, on the building in which his or her office is situated; or

(ii) use when advertising his or her office or business; or

(iii) place on a document, as a description of his or her office or business;

the words "Trade Marks Office" or "Office for registering trade marks", or words of similar import (whether alone or together with other words); or

(b) must not use in any other way, in connection with his or her business, words that would reasonably lead other persons to believe that his or her office is, or is officially connected with, the Trade Marks Office.

Penalty: 30 penalty units.

(2) An offence under this section is an offence of strict liability.

Similarly, section 177 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) prohibits false representations about the Australian Patent Office. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nicholas Weston, Lawyers & Trade Marks Attorneys is pleased to announce that Professor Mark Davison has joined the firm as a contributor to the Australian Trade Marks Law Blog.

Mark is currently Associate Dean (Undergraduate Studies) at Australia’s Monash University, and the author of several major works relating to intellectual property and competition law. He is the co-author of the third edition of Shanahan’s Australian Law of Trade Mark and Passing Off, the leading reference work on Australian trade mark law and has written The Legal Protection of Databases, a book published in the intellectual property series of Cambridge University Press. He has also published two casebooks dealing with competition law and aspects of consumer protection. In addition to his doctorate on sui generis protection of databases, he has a diploma in Indonesian language and studies and he is the winner of three Australian Research Council large grants.

Besides teaching Contract Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Marks and Commercial Designations and Copyright in the postgraduate and undergraduate courses at Monash, he has taught in various projects in Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On 25 September, 2007, Nicholas Weston Principal Nick Weston was appointed to the International Trademark Association’s (INTA) Law Firm Outreach Sub-Committee of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee (ADR) for the 2008 – 2009 committee term.

This year, 2,300 volunteers applied to serve on INTA committees. The INTA Law Firm Outreach Sub-Committee promotes the use of ADR and the INTA Panel of Neutrals to law firms, including INTA Associate member law firms.

INTA describes itself as “a not-for-profit membership association founded in 1878 of more than 5,000 trade mark owners and professionals, from more than 190 countries, dedicated to the support and advancement of trade marks and related intellectual property as elements of fair and effective national and international commerce.”