Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Le Cordon Bleu B.V. v Cordon Bleu International Ltee [2000] FCA 1587
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – trade marks – appeals from registration decisions – application for registration of mark "Cordon Bleu" by Canadian company in respect of pâté and meat spreads – opposition by French company proprietor of Le Cordon Bleu cooking school in Paris and (after priority date) Au Petit Cordon Bleu cooking school in London – whether marks likely to deceive or cause confusion – reputation of opponent in Australia – no sales or advertising – evidence as to knowledge of opponent's business by cookery experts – whether representative of relevant class of companies – mistaken assumption of witnesses that opponent proprietor of London school – opinion evidence by marketing expert – lack of empirical basis – reputation of Canadian company's product in Australia – no evidence of actual confusion – meanings of "cordon bleu" – metaphorical meaning – whether mark not entitled to protection in a court of justice – whether confined to inherent characteristics of the mark – application by French company for registration of device mark including words "CORDON BLEU" – whether deceptively similar to Canadian company's mark – whether goods of the same description – whether likely to deceive or cause confusion EVIDENCE – evidence of reputation of product – witnesses from specialist class – whether evidence can be extrapolated – opinion evidence of marketing expert – whether based on empirical evidence WORDS AND PHRASES – "cordon bleu" Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) 6(1), 6(3), 28(a), 28(d), 33(1) Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 46 IPR 481 at par 74 mentioned Re Arthur Fairest Ltd's Application (1951) 68 RPC 197 applied Nettlefold Advertising Pty Ltd v Nettlefold Signs Pty Ltd (1998) 45 IPR 393 at 395 applied Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592 applied Conagra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 302 at 367 mentioned Cooper Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd (1952) 86 CLR 536 at 539 applied Sports Café Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 42 IPR 552 at 559 applied Angelides v James Stedman Hendersons Sweets Ltd (1927) 40 CLR 43 at 72-73 applied B M Auto Sales Pty Ltd v Budget Rent a Car System (1976) 12 ALR 363 applied Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 at 269 applied Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293 at 301 mentioned Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F S Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641 at 658 applied The Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of The Ritz Ltd (1988) 12 IPR 417 at 474 applied Kimberly-Clark Corporation v Vereinigte Papierwerke Schikedanz & Co (1967) 118 CLR 79 at 84 followed McCormick & Company Inc v McCormick [2000] FCA 1335 mentioned In re J & J Colman Ltd's Application (1929) 46 RPC 126 Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off (2nd ed. 1990) at 146-7 mentioned LE CORDON BLEU B.V. V CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTEE NO. VG 16 OF 1998 RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE V CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTEE NO. VG 382 OF 1997 CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTEE V RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE NO. NG 557 OF 1997 HEEREY J 10 NOVEMBER 2000 SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)
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