03 November, 2014

Australian Trade Mark Office Decisions Summary September 2014

Australian Trade Mark Office Decisions Summary September 2014

Each month we produce a summary of the Australian Trade Mark Office decisions to provide practitioners and brand owners with a succinct, accessible database detailing current trends in Australian trade marks practice.

Doric Management Pty Ltd v Loukat Holdings Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 99
DORIC the pillar of similarity.

Section 60 trumps 44(3)(a) and 44(4) (sections 44 and 60)
Read full article >>

Novartis AG v Obvieline [2014] ATMO 79
That was SYNAC-THEN, this is SYNEC-THA-NOW.

Pharmaceuticals may be confused by end users where trade marks too close (section 44).
Read full article >>

Argenta Limited v Argenta Discovery 2009 Limited [2014] ATMO 80
Two ARGENTAs, One Registration.

Unrelated company honestly adopts identical trade mark, but prior reputation means it cannot be registered (section 60).
Read full article >>

Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v Spartan Sports Holdings Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 81
Not Identical TWINS.

Major League Baseball unable to prevent registration of TWINS trade mark for sporting goods (section 44).
Read full article >>

Bendigo Cemeteries Trust [2014] ATMO 82
Eternal ‘Doom’ for Funeral.

Application for REMEBERANCE PARKS CENTRAL VICTORIA denied registration for funeral services (section 41).
Read full article >>

Facebook, Inc v FACEMBA, LDA [2014] ATMO 83
Saving FACE.

Facebook successfully oppose FACEMBA for social networking platform (section 60).
Read full article >>

Save My Bacon Ltd v Marketing Intelligence Ltd [2014] ATMO 84
Bad Little Piggie.

SAVE MY BACON trade mark filed in bad faith (section 62A).
Read full article >>

Insight Clinical Imaging v Insight Radiology Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 85
I’m looking through you…you are the same.

Competing radiologists adopt substantially identical trade marks, later one denied registration (section 58).
Read full article >>

Bendigo Cemeteries Trust [2014] ATMO 86
Buried @ Home

‘@’ means ‘at’ and other traders likely need the trade mark MEMORIALS@HOME (section 41).
Read full article >>

Cars on Demand IP Pty Ltd v Cars on Demand Limited [2014] ATMO 87

Two trade marks containing the exact term ‘CARS ON DEMAND’ found not to be too similar (section 44).
Read full article >>

B Seppelt & Sons Ltd and Tucker Seabrook (Aust) Pty Ltd v Blaxland Vineyards Limited [2014] ATMO 88
There or thereabouts.

Connotation of label likely to lead to confusion about origin of wine (section 43).
Read full article >>

Head Technology GmbH v Uloc Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 90
It is all in your HEAD.

Tennis company Head Technology unable to prevent registration of WAXHEAD for sporting articles (sections 44 and 60).
Read full article >>

Southcorp Brands Pty Ltd v Winston Wine Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 91
A WYN WYNNS Scenario.

Owner of WYNNS wines unable to prevent registration of ‘WYN-‘ prefixed application (sections 44 and 60).
Read full article >>

One Mode Productions Limited [2014] ATMO 89
Help! 5SOS Tours with 1D but no INXS.

Addition of “5” is not enough to differentiate from prior SOS marks (section 44).
Read full article >>

Commonwealth & 8Ors v Primary Health Care Ltd [2014] ATMO 92

Consumers likely to confuse medical services with the business provision of medical centre (section 43).
Read full article >>

The Design Hunter Pty Ltd v Indesign Publishing Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 93
We are HUNTING the same prey.

'Consumer events’ and ‘retail services’ considered the same thing (section 58).
Read full article >>

Latest Tweets

Follow @sprusons on twitter.