Unilever Australia Ltd v Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. [2006] FCA 782

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Unilever Australia Ltd v Societe Des Produits Nestlé S.A. [2006] FCA 782 TRADE MARKS – application for cancellation of registration of the trade mark GO ON… – slogan – no use prior to filing date – common expression – exhortation to indulge – use by other traders – use with multiple tag lines – not a composite mark – use of ellipsis – punctuation to indicate a pause – no inherent adaptation to distinguish – evidence of intended use – not use to indicate origin of goods – intended use not use as a trade mark – no capacity to distinguish – registration cancelled

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 41, 88

Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovický Budvar, Národnì Podnik (2002) 56 IPR 182 cited Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co. (1960) 103 CLR 391 applied Austereo Pty Ltd v DMG Radio (Australia) Pty Ltd (2004) 209 ALR 93 applied Bayer Pharma Pty Ltd v Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (1965) 120 CLR 285 applied Blount Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 83 FCR 50 applied British Sugar plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281 applied Burger King Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks (1973) 128 CLR 417 applied Canada (Registrar of Trade Marks) v Cie internationale pour L'informatique CII Honeywell Bull, SA I [1985] 2 FC 766 cited Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Ltd (1994) 120 ALR 495 cited Chris-Telle Pty Ltd v Australian Swimming Inc (2005) 64 IPR 110 cited Clark Equipment Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511 applied "Cycling IS…" Trade Mark Applications [2002] 37 RPC 729 considered Effem Foods Pty Ltd v Unilever Plc (2000) 50 IPR 627 applied Fieldturf Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market Case [2004] EUECJ T-216/02considered Hugo Boss Fashions Inc v Federal Insurance Co, 252 F. 3d 608 (2d Cir. 2001), 59 USPQ2d 1161 considered I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S YOGURT Trade Mark [1992] 109 RPC 533 considered In the Matter of an Application for Registration of a Trade Mark by Magdalena Securities (1931) 48 RPC 477 considered Johnson & Johnson Australia Pty Ltd v Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 326 applied Kenman Kandy Australia Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (2002) 122 FCR 494 applied Mark Foy's Limited v Davies Coop and Company Limited (1956) 95 CLR 190 applied Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 414 applied Nestlé SA's Trade Mark application (Have a Break) [2004] FSR 2 considered Nikken Wellness Pty Ltd v van Voorst [2003] FCA 816 applied Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks (2000) 47 IPR 579 applied Oxford University Press v Registrar of Trade Marks (1990) 17 IPR 509cited re Boston Beer Co., 198 F3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999), 53 USPQ2d 1056 considered re Carvel Corporation, 223 USPQ 65, PO TM TAppBd, 1984 considered re Hills Bros. Coffee Inc, 120 USPQ 537 considered re O F Mossberg & Sons Inc, 175 USPQ 191 considered Registrar of Trade Marks v Muller (1980) 144 CLR 37 cited Registrar of Trade Marks v W & G Du Cros Ltd [1913] AC 624 applied Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 411 cited Samuel Taylor Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (1959) 102 CLR 650 applied Shell Co (Australia) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407 applied T.G.I. Friday's Australia Pty Ltd v TGI Friday's Inc (2000) 100 FCR 358 considered Thomson v B Seppelt & Sons Ltd (1925) 37 CLR 305 applied Top Heavy Pty Ltd v Killin (1996) 34 IPR 282 considered Unilever Australia Ltd v Karounos (2001) 113 FCR 322 applied Wella AG v Registrar of Trade Marks (1996) 33 IPR 374 applied Wellness Pty Ltd v Pro Bio Living Waters Pty Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 242 applied