Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
N.V. Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited [2011] FCA 1228 Citation: N.V. Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited [2011] FCA 1228
Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: N.V. Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v British American Tobacco Services Limited [2011] FCA 1051
Parties: N.V. SUMATRA TOBACCO TRADING COMPANY v BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO AUSTRALIA SERVICES LIMITED ACN 004 069 649
File number: QUD 310 of 2011
Judge: COLLIER J
Date of judgment: 31 October 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal – tests in Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 – whether tests in Decor apply in applications under s 195(2) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – grounds of application for leave to appeal INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – application for leave to appeal from decision of a Judge of this Court under s 195(2) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – s 44 Trade Marks Act – deceptive similarity to registered trade mark – whether primary judge incorporated reputational aspect into analysis of deceptive similarity – whether Cooper Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd (1952) 86 CLR 536 requires application of two-stage test in determining deceptive similarity
Legislation: Trade Marks Act 1905 (Cth) ss 25, 114 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 43, 44, 56, 60, 195(2)
Cases cited: Australian Woollen Mills Limited v F.S. Walton and Company Limited (1937) 58 CLR 641 cited Berlei Hestia Industries Ltd v Bali Co Inc (1973) 129 CLR 353 cited Companhia Souza Cruz Industria E Comercio v Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 497 cited Cooper Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd (1952) 86 CLR 536 applied Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 212 cited Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 196 cited Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 applied de Cordova v Vick Chemical Co (1951) 68 RPC 103 cited Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2009] FCA 1445 partly not followed Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58 applied Hills Holdings Limited v Bitek Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 644 cited NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v British American Tobacco Services Limited [2011] FCA 1051 related Pianotist Company Ltd's Application (1906) 23 RPC 774 cited Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 93 FCR 365 cited Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592 cited The Scotch Whiskey Association v De Witt (2008) 75 IPR 280 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