Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Registrar Of Trade Marks v Woolworths [1999] FCA 1020 TRADE MARKS – registrability – service mark – refusal by Registrar to accept application – deceptive similarity to other marks in respect of goods and services – proper test of deceptive similarity – appeal from Registrar's decision to single Judge – nature of appeal hearing before single Judge – requirement for leave to appeal to Full Court – bases upon which leave granted – presumption of registrability – nature of acceptance process – contrast with adversarial opposition and expungment proceedings – whether deceptive similarity considered without reference to normal and fair use of conflicting marks – whether test for likelihood of confusion – doubt about common origin – legislative history – legislative policy. Halsburys Statutes, 4th Edition Kerly, Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 12th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (1986) Smith, The Trade Marks Amendment Act 1978 (1979) 53 ALJ 118
Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth)
Trade Marks Amendment Act 1978 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) Trade Mark Regulations 1995 and 1958 Jafferjee v Scarlett (1937) 57 CLR 115 cited Advanced Hair Studio of America Pty Ltd v Registrar (1988) 10 IPR 583 cited Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F.S. Walton & Company Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641 applied Eclipse Sleep Products Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks (1957) 99 CLR 300followed Rowntree plc v Rollbits Pty Ltd (1988) 10 IPR 539 discussed Blount Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 40 IPR 498; (1988) 83 FCR 50 cited Ex parte Bucknell (1936) 56 CLR 221 cited Caterpillar Loader Hire (Holdings) v Caterpillar Tractor Co (1983) 48 ALR 511 discussed Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592 applied Re Smith Hayden and Co's Application (1946) 63 RPC 97 cited Berlei Hestia Industries Ltd v Bali Company Inc (1973) 129 CLR 353 cited Johnson & Johnson v Kalnin (1993) 114 ALR 215, 26 IPR 435 cited Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 cited Cooper Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd (1952) 86 CLR 536 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