Qantas Airways Limited v Edwards [2016] FCA 729

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Qantas Airways Limited v Edwards [2016] FCA 729 Appeal from: Qantas Airways Limited v Edwards [2014] ATMO 40

File number: NSD 549 of 2014

Judge: YATES J

Date of judgment: 23 June 2016

Catchwords: TRADE MARKS – appeal from decision of Registrar –opposition proceedings – whether the opposed trade mark is "deceptively similar" to the opponent's registered trade mark – whether the opponent's trade mark is registered in respect of "closely related services" – whether the opponent's registered and unregistered trade marks have acquired a reputation in Australia, such that use of the opposed trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion

Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 80 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 44, 60 Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) s 33 Trade Marks Amendment Act 1978 (Cth)

Cases cited: Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 105 IPR 1; [2013] FCAFC 153 Automobiles Peugeot v Viva Time Corporation (2001) 54 IPR 568; [2001] ATMO 52 Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Muller and Kennedy (2007) 74 IPR 409; [2007] ATMO 62 Caterpillar Loader Hire (Holdings)Pty Ltd v Caterpillar Tractor Co (1983) 77 FLR 139; [1983] FCA 143 ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 302; [1992] FCA 176 Hugo Boss AG v Jackson International Trading Company Kurt D Bruhl Gesellschaft GmbH & Co KG (1999) 47 IPR 423; [1999] ATMO 23 McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick (2000) 51 IPR 102; [2000] FCA 1335 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (No 2) (2010) 275 ALR 526; [2010] FCA 1380 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 93 FCR 365; [1999] FCA 1020 Smith v Car2go GmbH (2013) 104 IPR 359; [2013] ATMO 103 Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 234 FCR 549; [2002] FCAFC 157 Smith FJ, "The Trade Marks Amendment Act 1978" (1979) 53 ALJ 118