Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chia Khim Lee Food Industries Pte Ltd v Red Bull GmbH (No 1) [2012] FCA 1184 Citation: Chia Khim Lee Food Industries Pte Ltd v Red Bull GmbH (No 1) [2012] FCA 1184
Appeal from: Red Bull GmbH v Chia Khim Lee Food Industries Pte Ltd [2012] ATMO 7
Parties: CHIA KHIM LEE FOOD INDUSTRIES PTE LTD v RED BULL GMBH
File number: VID 125 of 2012
Judges: DODDS-STREETON J
Date of judgment: 1 October 2012
Catchwords: TRADE MARKS – Application to strike out ground of appeal under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether question of law should be determined on strike out application – whether ground of appeal same subject matter as decision below – whether ground had reasonable prospects of success
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 44 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 23, 38 Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 104 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), ss 6, 33, 36, 44, 56, 60, 62A, 77, 78, 80, 92(4), 101(2), 197 Trade Marks Act 1938 (UK), ss 12, 19 Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth), s 33 Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth), regs 4.13, 4.15A
Cases cited: Airsense Technology Ltd v Vision Systems Ltd (2007) 73 IPR 65 cited Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (Unreported, FCA, Beaumont J, 13 September 1994) cited Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Lambroglou (1990) 12 AAR 515 considered Bittmann v ASIC (No 2) [2006] FCA 1786 considered Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Hayson Group of Companies Pty Ltd (2006) 68 NSWLR 254 considered E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 175 FCR 386 considered Hills Industries Ltd v Bitek Pty Ltd (2011) 90 IPR 337 cited Legal & General Life of Australia v Carlton-Jones & Associates Pty Ltd (1987) 9 IPR 447 cited McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick (2000) 51 IPR 102 cited New England Biolabs v F Hoffmann-La Roche AG (2004) 62 IPR 510 considered PB Foods v Malanda Dairy Foods Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 47 cited Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (No 4) [2011] FCA 1126 cited Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2012] FCAFC 97 considered Polymat Trade Mark [1968] RPC 124 considered Red Bull GmbH v Chia Khim Lee Food Industries Pte Ltd [2012] ATMO 7 cited Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 93 FCR 365 cited Roll International Corp v Teleflora (Australia) Inc (1997) 40 IPR 318 considered South Cone Inc v Stockline Pty Ltd (2001) 52 IPR 575 cited Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1953) 91 CLR 592 cited Suyen Corporation v Americana International Ltd (2010) 187 FCR 169 cited Takata Corporation v Britax Child Care Products Pty Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 425 considered Texas Company's Application (1915) 32 RPC 442 cited TiVo Inc v Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 252 cited VB Distributors v Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co Ltd (1999) 53 IPR 466 cited Winton Shire Council v Lomas (2002) 56 IPR 72 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