Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58 Citation: Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58
Appeal from: Television Food Network, G.P. v Food Channel Network Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 271
Parties: FOOD CHANNEL NETWORK PTY LTD ACN 079 015 339 v TELEVISION FOOD NETWORK G.P.
File number(s): QUD 103 of 2009 QUD 132 of 2009
Judges: KEANE CJ, STONE AND JAGOT JJ
Date of judgment: 2 June 2010
Catchwords: TRADE MARKS – opposition proceedings – the appellant claimed the respondent was not the owner of a disputed trade mark at the date the mark was applied for – the appellant claimed the respondent had no intention to use the mark at the date the mark was applied for – the appellant claimed the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to its own – whether the appellant was entitled to have the respondent's mark removed from the register.
Legislation: Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 27, 33, 44, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 88
Cases cited: Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co (1960) 103 CLR 391; [1960] HCA 47, followed Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Ltd (1994) 31 IPR 375 Cooper Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd (1952) 86 CLR 536; [1952] HCA 15, followed Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty LTd (2004) 209 ALR 1, followed Danjaq LLC v Resource Capital Australia Pty Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 651, cited E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australian Pty Limited [2010] HCA 15, followed Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 13, followed Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd (2008) 75 IPR 478, considered Joseph Constantine Line v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd [1942] AC 154, cited Kenman Kandy Australia Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (2002) 122 FCR 494, considered Jafferjee v Scarlett (1937) 57 CLR 115, considered Kowa Co v NV Organon (2005) 223 ALR 27, cited Lomas v Winton Shire Council [2002] FCAFC 413, followed Michael Sharwood & Partners Pty Ltd v Fuddruckers Inc (1989) 15 IPR 188, cited Pfizer Products v Karam [2006] FCA 1663, considered Sapient Australia Pty Ltd v SAP AG (2002) 55 IPR 638, cited Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Rohm and Haas Co (1948) 78 CLR 601, followed Unity Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Rocco Pezzano Pty Ltd (1998) 154 ALR 361; [1998] HCA 38, cited
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate