William Charlick Limited v Wilkinson & Company Pty Ltd [1913] HCA 72

370 HIGH COURT {19

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

WILLIAM CHARLICK LIMITED . > Jo APPELEANISSS APPLICANTS,

AND

WILKINSON & COMPANY fap elena | RESPONDENTS,

LIMITED . " 4 ' ry OPPONENTS, 3

ON APPEAL FROM THE LAW OFFICER.

H.C. or A. Lrade mark—Application—Resemblance to registered trade mark—Likelihood of 1913. deception—Colours, limitation of ~T'rade Marks Act 1905 (No. 20 of 1905),

Ss secs. 21, 25, 114. MrrsourNe, May 14, 16. Where it appeared to the Court that a trade mark to be placed on p of tea, for which registration was sought, possessed some points of pearioh pa larity to an opponent's registered trade mark, but that the differences Powers and between the two were so marked and so easily discernible to a purchaser ich JJ.

ordinary perceptions and ordinary sense that it could not reasonably be said that the trade mark sought to be registered was likely to deceive him into belief that when buying a packet of tea bearing the latter mark he buying the tea of the opponent,

Held, that the application for registration should be granted,

An application for a trade mark set out a label bearing a design printed several colours, requested the registration of the ' accompanying trade marl and stated that the essential particulars of the trade mark were "the dis tive label."

Trade Marks Act 1905.

AppEaL from the Law Officer.

16 CLR.) OF AUSTRALIA.

William Charlick Ltd. applied for the registration of a trade mark in respect of tea. The nature of the trade mark and the other material facts are stated in the judgment of Barton A.C.J. hereunder. The application was opposed by Wilkinson & Co. Proprietary Ltd. The Deputy Registrar having dismissed the opposition, the opponents appealed to the Law Officer who found that the applicants' label was not distinctive, and that it was likely to lead to the goods of the applicants being mistaken for those of the opponents. He therefore allowed the appeal, and refused the application to register.