Posts Tagged ‘Australia’

Coke v Pepsi – “second” look

Monday, December 8th, 2014

Last week, Besanko J dismissed Coca-Cola Co’s claims that PepsiCo’s “Carolina” bottle shape infringed Coke’s trade marks, and was passing off and misleading or deceptive conduct.

Contour v Carolina

Some background

Coca-Cola Co relied on four trade marks: TM Nos 63697, 767355, 1160893 and 1160894 registered in class 32 for non-alcoholic beverages. The first two might be thought of as 2D representations of the shape of Coca-Cola Co’s “Contour” bottle, which has been in use in Australia since 1938.

1287.2

The second two were essentially the silhouette of the bottle; one image in white, the other in black.

1287.3

PepsiCo had introduced its Carolina bottle shape into Australia in August 2007 on a very small scale. It seems not to have been on the market at all between May 2008 and February 2009, when it was reintroduced on a larger, but still small scale. The Carolina bottle shape had apparently not been the subject of any advertising or promotion. At the time when PepsiCo introduced the Carolina bottle, there were 4, perhaps 6, other bottles used for soft drinks in the market with “waists of varying degrees” so the Contour bottle was not unique in that respect.

The trade mark infringement claims

Besanko J found that PepsiCo was using the Carolina bottle shape as a trade mark, but did not infringe because it was not deceptively similar to Coca-Cola Co’s trade marks.

In deciding that PepsiCo was using the overall shape of the Carolina bottle as a trade mark, Besanko J noted that the relevant goods were the beveage, a formless substance, and the bottle was just a container. So, the cases like Philips v Remington where the shape was the shape of the goods themselves did not apply. At [213], his Honour found that the shape was distinctive and intended to be so.

Besanko J was not prepared to find, however, that PepsiCo used the silhouette of the Carolina bottle as a trade mark. A number of factors played into this conclusion. His Honour accepted that the outline or shape of the bottle may be one of the first things seen by a consumer from a distance. However, that was not enough in itself. Among the factors that led to the finding, his Honour noted at [215]:

…. All bottles have an outline or silhouette and the fact that a bottle has a waist is not so extraordinary as to lead to the conclusion that that feature alone is being used as a trade mark.

and at [216]:

…. the outline or silhouette of the Carolina Bottle is likely to become less important in the consumer’s mind as he or she approaches the refrigerator or cooler and focuses on word marks, logos, and brands. As I have said, the fact that an aspect of a product may be seen at one point does not lead to the conclusion that consumers would see it as a badge of origin.

deceptive similarity

Besanko J agreed with the Full Court’s analysis of the shape depicted in TM Nos 63697 and 767355:

  • the sides of the bottle are curved rather than flat;
  • there is fluting on the top and lower portions of the bottle and no fluting in a central section;
  • the top and lower portions of the bottle have the same number of flutes; and
  • the bottle has a flat base and banded neck.

In contrast, PepsiCo’s Carolina bottle did not have flutes or the clear band; it had a horizontal “wave” feature and its waist was both more gradual and extended higher up the bottle. These differences at [235] were “significant”.

At [240], his Honour rejected Coca-Cola Co’s argument that the overall impression consumers would take away from the Carolina bottle was of “a bottle having a low waisted contoured shape”. Instead:

I do not accept that that is the view which would be held by the ordinary consumer. In my opinion, the waist, the horizontal wave feature, and, to a lesser extent, the frustoconical neck are the significant features of the Carolina Bottle.

Besanko J was not prepared to find that outline or silhouette of the bottle was the essential feature of thes trade marks. Rather, the vertical flutes and the clear belt band were as prominent. At [238]:

…. It cannot be said, for example, that a bottle with a waist is so extraordinary, or a bottle with vertical flutes and a clear belt band so common, that the outline or silhouette should be considered the essential feature.

However, Besanko J also found that the Carolina bottle was not deceptively similar to the silhouette marks represented in TM Nos 1160893 and 1160894. His Honour found that the Carolina bottle was distinctive in itself and, therefore, not deceptively similar. So, at [247], his Honour said:

Even if the outline or silhouette is the only feature of the marks, or is the essential idea of the marks, the comparison is with the sign the alleged infringer has used as a trade mark. In this case, I have found that is the whole shape of the Carolina Bottle. The following are the distinctive features of the Carolina Bottle which I think are distinctive but are not part of the registered marks:

(1) the Carolina Bottle has a gently curving waist at a higher point than that in the marks and does not have an abrupt pinch near the base;

(2) the Carolina Bottle has a cylindrical shoulder, not a curved shoulder;

(3) the Carolina Bottle has a frustoconical neck, not a curved neck;

(4) the Carolina Bottle has a twist top enclosure, not a cap lid seal; and

(5) the Carolina Bottle has a distinctive horizontal embossed wave pattern across the bottom half of the bottle.

Then, at [248], his Honour pointed out that the first 4 factors related to the silhouette and “it seems to me … the outline or silhouette of the Carolina Bottle would not be deceptively similar to either [trade mark].”

I am not at all sure, with respect, that the question is whether the accused sign is distinctive in its own right. Perhaps this means that, in a market where there are other low waisted bottles, the differences were sufficiently important that consumers would not be caused to wonder whether there was a connection with the trade mark owner.

Passing off / misleading or deceptive conduct

On this part of the case, Besanko J thought it was difficult to see why the ordinary consumer would not make his or her purchase on the basis of the [famous] brand names, device marks or logos. However, “not without some hesitation”, his Honour was prepared to find at [270] that a sufficient number of consumers who select a bottle from the store’s refrigerated drinks cabinet themselves “may well make their selection based on overall bottle shape” as a result of their minimal involvement in the purchase.

There was no likelihood of deception or confusion, however, as the shape of the bottles was too different. At [271]:

The difficulty for [Coca-Cola Co] is that, even accepting that and accepting that both bottles will contain dark brown cola and be sold within a similar, if not the same, context, I do not think that such a consumer would be misled or deceived, or would be likely to be misled or deceived, in the case of overall bottle shape because I think he or she would detect quite clearly the difference between the Contour Bottle and the Carolina Bottle. The most noticeable difference between the two bottles is that the Contour Bottle has the very distinctive fluting and the Carolina Bottle has the distinctive horizontal waves. Other noticeable features are the different shaped neck and shoulders and the fact that the waist on the Contour Bottle is lower and more pinched. In other words, if overall bottle shape is the cue, I do not think that there is any real likelihood of deception.

The role of intention

On all 3 aspects of the case, Coca-Cola Co contended that PepsiCo had intentionally designed the Carolina bottle to take advantage of the reputation in the Contour bottle. While Besanko J noted there were features of the relevant PepsiCo executive’s evidence “which caused me to scrutinise it carefully”, his Honour was not prepared to find an intention to deceive or cause confusion.

In any event, Besanko J did not think the resemblance of the Carolina bottle to the Contour shape was sufficiently close for PepsiCo’s intentions to lead to findings of infringement, passing off or misleading or deceptive conduct.

Coca Cola Company v PepsiCo Inc (No 2) [2014] FCA 1287

Apple can’t register APP STORE as a trade mark in Australia

Friday, December 5th, 2014

Yates J has rejected Apple’s attempt to register APP STORE in Australia as a trade mark for retail store services featuring computer software provided via the internet or for use on handheld mobile devices and the like.

Apple applied to register APP STORE in Australia on 18 July 2008 for retail store services featuring computer software […] in class 35 and related services in classes 38 and 42, TM App No 1252301. The application claimed Convention priority from 7 March 2008. Apple’s “App Store” launched in Australia on 11 July 2008 – that is, one week before the application was filed – with the release of the iPhone 3G. The Registrar rejected the application on the grounds that the trade mark lacked any inherent capacity to distinguish and, there having been no use prior to 11 July 2008, it was not factually distinctive of Apple as at the claimed Convention priority date.

Yates J, as noted, has rejected Apple’s “appeal” on the basis that APP STORE is not capable of distinguishing the services specified in the application.[1] As one would expect, his Honour’s decision provides an excellent tutorial on how one should approach questions arising under s 41 including, apart perhaps from questions of onus, the new form.

The relevant date

Yates J held that capacity to distinguish fell to be assessed at the filing date of the application not, as the Registrar contended based essentially on s 72, on the priority date applicable as a Convention application. This was potentially significant as there had been no use of the trade mark at the priority date, but there had been at least one week’s use at the filing date.

Capacity to distinguish

Yates J began by pointing out that whether something has inherent capacity to distinguish depends on the occasion and circumstance. It turns on both the nature of the particular mark itself and also the nature of the particular goods or services specified in the application.[2]

To overcome the Registrar’s rejection, Apple relied on evidence from a linguistics expert, analysis of internet usage on Google Trends and in the Internet Archive and a Newspoll online survey

Apple’s primary argument was that the expression “app store” could not be fully understood by simply combining the meanings of its component parts “app” and “store”. At [88]:

…. In other words, the combination “app store” does not have a “compositional” meaning. According to him, “the compound APP STORE can only be fully?understood non?compositionally”. ….

The argument here was that, while the term “app” had been used as “clipped” form of application since 1985, that usage was restricted to specialised computer circles. In addition, the word “store” meant a physical place where one went to buy goods or services: Apple’s App Store introduced a new meaning: an online, virtual “place” where one did not so much buy things as a “licence” to use software. That is, in more traditional terms, the expression is at best “allusive” rather than directly descriptive.

On the evidence, however, Yates J found that both “app” and “store” had relevantly well-understood descriptive meanings in the relevant sense for the general public at the filing date. There was evidence at [121] – [123] that before the filing date “app” had been used in 83 articles in publications such as PC World, Technology Review, Rolling Stone and Atlantic Monthly to refer to software applications running on PCs in the Windows environment. At [181], his Honour found:

well before 2008, the word “app” had a well-established and well-understood meaning as a shorthand expression for computer software that is application, as opposed to operating, software. I do not accept that, at the filing date, this use of the word was restricted to computer experts. I am satisfied that it was the received meaning for many interested users of computer software and certainly for those involved in the trade of supplying computer programs, including by retail.

and at [190]:

I am not persuaded that the word “store”, as used in APP STORE, ushered in a new meaning of that word. On the evidence, I am satisfied that, at the time that Apple applied for the APP STORE mark, the word “store” had a well-established and well-understood meaning among traders and the general public that was not confined to the traditional notion of a physical store, but extended, as well, to an online store for the provision of goods or services.

His Honour gave as examples Amazon.com’s launch of its e-Books store in 2000, its software download store launched in 2001 and Apple’s own iTunes Music Store launched in 2003.

Consequently, his Honour concluded that members of the public seeking to acquire application software at the filing date would have understood APP STORE to be no more than a description of a trade channel. It had no inherent capacity to distinguish:

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, at the filing date, members of the public seeking to acquire application software would have understood APP STORE as no more than an expression to describe a trade channel – a store – by or through which application software could be acquired. The fact that the “acquisition” would have involved the acquisition of rights by way of licence does not, in my view, bear upon the matter.

Even if Apple was the first to use the combined expression, which Yates J does not seem to have been convinced it was, “the words in combination bore no more than their ordinary signification when applied to the designated services in Class 35.”

While his Honour drew on the Full Federal Court’s ruling in Oro / Cinque Stelle overturned by yesterday’s ruling in the High Court, these factual findings of what the terms and combined expression would mean to members of the public, unless somehow overturned, would appear to be fatal to any appeal.

Acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning)

Yates J considered the evidence on acquired distinctiveness “opaque”. There was no real evidence about how the press releases issued with the launch of the store were used or of any other advertising or promotional steps undertaken. His Honour was prepared to accept that people had done internet searches in the week following launch of the term “app store” and “perhpas many persons” had come to associate the App Store service with Apple, but that was not enough.

The Newspoll survey

The Newspoll survey was drawn from an online pool of people who were willing to participate in market surveys for reward. It disclosed that some 65% of participants associated the term “App Store” with a particular company or brand[3] and at least 88% of those nominated Apple as the company or brand. There were at least 2 main problems with this survey. First, it was conducted in 2011 – 3 years after the relevant date – “well after the relevant period” at [223]. Secondly at [224] – [231], applying cases like Woolworths v BP and Chocolaterie Guylian, it was not enough to demonstrate that the expression APP STORE was associated with Apple; it was necessary to show the nature of that association was to identify the trade source of the product – i.e., as a badge of origin.

The ‘pro-active’ role of the Registrar

Apple criticised the active role the Registrar took in this case: going to the lengths of filing her own expert evidence in answer to Apple’s expert and relying on affidavits provided by solicitors acting for Microsoft. Such an active role is indeed unusual in such appeals. Yates J, however, did not accept that the Registrar’s role could fairly be described as “partisan”. His Honour pointed out that the Registrar is entitled to appear as a party and what role she should take when doing say would depend on the circumstances of particular cases:

In the present appeal, a large body of evidence, including expert evidence, was adduced by Apple. The Registrar was not bound to accept either the completeness or the correctness of that evidence. If, as here, there was a genuine alternative case available on the facts or evidence which materially qualified the case brought by Apple, then that alternative case could only be advanced by evidence adduced by the Registrar in the appeal, including by way of expert evidence, bearing in mind the nature of the proceeding as a hearing de novo. I do not think that the Registrar should be criticised for advancing a case for the Court’s consideration. To deny the Registrar that opportunity would be to deny the Court the opportunity to make findings on an appropriately-informed basis. This is not to encourage the Registrar, as a party to such an appeal, to make the case before the Court more factually complex or extensive than it need reasonably be or to take other than appropriately measured steps in the conduct of the litigation. Quite clearly, appropriate judgment must be exercised in considering what evidence is truly necessary, and what forensic decisions should be taken, to fulfil the Registrar’s role, which must be to take reasonable steps under the Act to protect the public interest in respect of the registration of trade marks in Australia. I do not think that the Registrar has over-stepped the mark in this case. ….

Apple Inc. v Registrar of Trade Marks [2014] FCA 1304


  1. This too was decided under the “old” form of s 41 not the new form introduced by the [Raising the Bar Act][rtb].  ?
  2. Although not referred to specifically by his Honour, this is well illustrated by “North Pole” in respect of “bananas” in contrast to, say, “Whopper” in respect of hamburgers.  ?
  3. There was considerable variation among age groups: 90% of those aged 18 to 34, 81% of those aged 35 to 49 and 60% of those aged 50 to 64.  ?

ORO and CINQUE STELLE are registrable as trade marks for coffee in Australia

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014

In what might (with respect) be seen as a surprising decision, the High Court, by majority,[1] has allowed Cantarella’s appeal and restored its trade mark registrations for ORO and CINQUE STELLE in respect of coffee to the Register of Trade Marks. Gageler J dissented and would have dismissed the appeal.

Modena, which had been importing and selling Caffe Molinari’s Oro and Cinque Stelle “brands”, was found to have infringed Cantarella’s registrations[2] but for its successful cross-claim invalidating the registrations on the grounds that the marks were not capable of distinguishing the products.[3] As a result of the High Court’s decision, therefore, this infringed Cantarella’s rights:[4]

Unknown

Some facts

Cantarella registered ORO and CINQUE STELLE as trade marks for coffeee in Australia in, respectively, 2000 and 2001. Cantarella had first started using ORO to designate one of its lines of VITTORIA coffee in 1996 and CINQUE STELLE in 2000.

Caffe Molinari has been selling its Caffe Molinari Oro blend of coffee in Italy since 1965 and its Caffe Molinari Cinque Stelle blend since 1997. Its Caffe Molinari Oro products had been imported into Australia since 1996 and the Caffe Molinari Cinque Stelle products after their introduction.

Mr Pagent, one of the principals of Modena, had been selling VITTORIA products, including ORO and CINQUE STELLE in one of his previous businessnes since the mid–1990s. After he sold those businesses, through Modena he began importing and selling Caffe Molinari’s products in the UK and then, from 2009, in Australia. By the time the litigation started, there were literally “dozens” of “ORO” coffee brands in the market.

The legal question

In the High Court, the question was whether ORO and CINQUE STELLE iwere “capable of distinguishing” Cantarella’s coffee products under s 41.[5] That in turn turned on whether each was “inherently adapated to distinguish [coffee] … from the [coffee products] … of other persons”.

Both the majority and Gageler J agreed that “inherently adapted to distinguish” was to be interpreted in accordance with the longstanding case law and the statement of the basic test from the Clark Equipment case. That is:

by reference to the likelihood that other persons, trading in goods of the relevant kind and being actuated only by proper motives – in the exercise, that is to say, of the common right of the public to make honest use of words forming part of the common heritage, for the sake of the signification which they ordinarily possess – will think of the word and want to use it in connexion with similar goods in any manner which would infringe a registered trade mark granted in respect of it.

The words in italics were emphasised by the majority. Their Honours held that those italicised words imposed an additional and limiting requirement to the test for signs which lacked inherent adaptation to distinguish. It was not enough that another trader might with improper motives wish to use the sign, the sign must also have direct reference to the quality or some other characteristic of the products in question. So, at [59], French CJ, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ said:

The principles settled by this Court (and the United Kingdom authorities found in this Court to be persuasive) require that a foreign word be examined from the point of view of the possible impairment of the rights of honest traders and from the point of view of the public. It is the “ordinary signification” of the word, in Australia, to persons who will purchase, consume or trade in the goods which permits a conclusion to be drawn as to whether the word contains a “direct reference” to the relevant goods (prima facie not registrable) or makes a “covert and skilful allusion” to the relevant goods (prima facie registrable). When the “other traders” test from Du Cros is applied to a word (other than a geographical name or a surname), the test refers to the legitimate desire of other traders to use a word which is directly descriptive in respect of the same or similar goods. The test does not encompass the desire of other traders to use words which in relation to the goods are allusive or metaphorical. In relation to a word mark, English or foreign, “inherent adaption to distinguish” requires examination of the word itself, in the context of its proposed application to particular goods in Australia.

In the case of foreign words, as here, their meaning translated into English was relevant, but not necessarily critical.[6] What was critical was the meaning conveyed by the foreign term, if any, to those “who will be concerned with the relevant goods”. That is, what is the ordinary meaning, if anything, of that foreign word or expression to those in Australia who will purchase, consume or trade in the relevant products?

Then, at [71], their Honours explained:

…. Once the “ordinary signification” of a word, English or foreign, [if any, to those in Australia who purchase or consume or trade in such products] is established an enquiry can then be made into whether other traders might legitimately need to use the word in respect of their goods. If a foreign word contains an allusive reference to the relevant goods it is prima facie qualified for the grant of a monopoly[90]. However, if the foreign word is understood by the target audience as having a directly descriptive meaning in relation to the relevant goods, then prima facie the proprietor is not entitled to a monopoly of it[91]. Speaking generally, words which are prima facie entitled to a monopoly secured by registration are inherently adapted to distinguish. (footnote citations omitted)

The problem (for Modena) in this case is that apparently there are only 350,000 people in Australia speaking Italian at home.[7] However, the trial judge found:[8]

only a “very small minority” of English speakers in Australia would understand the meaning of the words, and that the Italian language is not “so widely spread” that the words would be generally understood as meaning “gold” and “five stars” respectively.

As a result, the majority explained at [73]:

Like “TUB HAPPY” in respect of cotton goods, “ORO” and “CINQUE STELLE” were not shown to convey a meaning or idea sufficiently tangible to anyone in Australia concerned with coffee goods as to be words having a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods.

Gageler J’s dissent

In broad terms, Gageler J, especially at [92] – [95] disagreed that the words from Clark Equipment emphasised by the majority were an additional and limiting requirement. Rather they were merely a “parenthetical reference”, a subset of the overall test which focussed:

on the extent to which the monopoly granted on registration of a trade mark would foreclose options otherwise available to rival traders acting in the ordinary course of their businesses without any desire to benefit from the applicant’s reputation.

For example, his Honour pointed out that in Clark Equipment itself, which conerned the trade mark MICHIGAN, there was no evidence that any other trader manufactured the farm machinery in question in Michigan. Indeed, as the trade mark was registered in the USA, no-one probably could.

Extraordinary or just a decision on its facts

Given the trial judge’s finding of fact, one could argue that this case is just a decision on its facts.

That overlooks the important difference in principle on how one tests inherent adaptation to distinguish between the majority and Gageler J. It is also hard to resist an impression that Gageler J’s approach adopted a broader or more “multicultural” perspective.

One consequence of the decision is that Caffe Molinari’s products, which had been imported into Australia since 1996 / 1997 have been found to infringe so many years after the event even though Cantarella’s trade marks were registered after the infringing conduct commenced.[9] Of course, as s 124 and s 44 illustrate, an assiduous infringer cannot gazump a trade mark owner.

Another “oddity”: Cantarella accepted that it could not stop Modena using QUALITA ORO, presumably because it is descriptive?

Further, by 2011, the evidence showed dozens of other traders in Australia using Oro or D’oro to identify their coffee products. These included Lavazza Qualità Oro, Caffè Incas Oro, Coffee Mio Brazil Oro …. A number of these uses appear to have predated Cantarella’s registrations. There were also one or two Five Stars or 5 Stelle and, of course, hundreds of businesses have Five Star in their names.[10]

French CJ, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ discounted these; for example at [75]:

The evidence led by Modena purporting to show that rival traders used (or desired to use) the word “oro” to directly describe their coffee products showed no more than that the word “oro” or the form “d’oro” had been employed on internet sites and coffee product packaging in respect of coffee products in a range of composite marks featuring Italian words which ostensibly were distinguishable aurally, visually and semantically. Further, the presence on the Register, before Cantarella’s trade mark “ORO” was registered, of another proprietor’s composite mark “LAVAZZA QUALITA ORO plus device” and Cantarella’s own composite mark “MEDAGLIA D’ORO” in respect of coffee products fell well short of proving that the word “oro”, standing alone, is understood in Australia by persons concerned with coffee products to be directly descriptive of the character or quality of such goods. (emphasis supplied)

One might hope that, being “distinguishable aurally, visually and semantically”, these other traders’ uses would not infringe Cantarella’s trade marks. But, putting Woolworths Metro to one side, one does not usually avoid infringement by making it clear from the surrounding circumstances that the trade source is different from, (i.e., not) the trade mark owner.[11] Correspondingly, would someone who uses “5 star” to designate its premium coffee infringe?

Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited [2014] HCA 48


  1. French CJ, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ.  ?
  2. Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited [2013] FCA 8.  ?
  3. Modena Trading Pty Ltd v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 110.  ?
  4. As the trial judge, Emmett J discussed at [130] – [144], the packaging of the Molinari products made extensive use of ORO or CINQUE STELLE alone in many other respects.  ?
  5. This was s 41 in the form as originally enacted not in its current form following the commencement of the “Raising the Bar” amendments.  ?
  6. At [48] – [49].  ?
  7. This figure was apparently taken from the 2001 Census. As Gageler J pointed out in dissent [103], even this figure made Italian the second most spoken language in Australia.  ?
  8. French CJ, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ at [61].  ?
  9. The evidence is not entirely clear about the extent, if any, to which Modena’s use was different to what Caffe Molinari originally did. Gageler J and, according to his Honour, the Full Federal Court were prepared to infer it was not relevantly different.  ?
  10. Per Gageler J at [111].  ?
  11. Saville Perfumery Ltd v June Perfect Ltd (1939) 1B IPR 440; 58 RPC 147.  ?

Dallas Buyers Club sues to identify internet subscribers

Wednesday, November 19th, 2014

When the (inaptly named) Online Copyright Infringement Discussion Paper was released, Minister Turnbull was reported as suggesting copyright owners should sue the downloading end-users.

Last month, Dallas Buyers Club LLC was reported to have started that process. It has commenced proceedings against various telcos and ISPs seeking preliminary discovery from them of the identities of their customers who were using IP (as in Internet Protocol) addresses at times Dallas Buyers Club LLC says illegal copies of the film were being downloaded from those addresses.

Last Monday, Perram J rejected an application by some journalists and others for access under FCR r 2.29 to most of the documents on the court file. His Honour noted the usual rule that affidavits are not “public” until they have been used in court and the potential privacy sensitivities or releasing, amongst other things, subscriber identification information at this very early stage of the proceeding.

Apparently, Dallas Buyers Club LLC’s application for preliminary discovery will be heard all the way off on 17 – 18 February 2015.

For cases where the record companies successfully obtained preliminary discovery from the Universities of some student details alleged to be engaging in infringing activities, see Sony v University of Tasmania here, here, here and here.

On a slightly different tack, it was reported on 19 November that some Universities have been suspending staff and student access to the internet, and in at least the case of UNSW, issuing fines where “internet piracy” has been discovered.

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v iiNet Limited (No 1) [2014] FCA 1232

Alphapharm may have a big bill coming

Tuesday, November 18th, 2014

The High Court has dismissed Alphapharm’s appeal from the Full Federal Court’s ruling granting Lundbeck an extension of time to apply to extend the term of the escitalopram patent. It was close though: 3 to 2.

You will recall that Lundbeck applied 10 years late to extend the term of its pharmaceutical patent. So, not only was Lundbeck applying to extend the term of its patent (under s70), it was applying for an extension of time in which to make that application. In granting special leave, the High Court accepted that, if the power were available, the circumstances justified the 10 year extension. The question was a matter of statutory interpretation: was there power to extend.

Section 71(2) specifies when an application to extend the term of a pharmaceutical patent must be made:

(2) An application for an extension of the term of a standard patent must be made during the term of the patent and within 6 months after the latest of the following dates:

(a) the date the patent was granted;

(b) the date of commencement of the first inclusion in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods of goods that contain, or consist of, any of the pharmaceutical substances referred to in subsection 70(3);

(c) the date of commencement of this section.

Lundbeck’s application was made within the term of the standard patent (with 1 day to spare), but well outside the dates specified in paragraphs (a) – (c).

Section 223 confers a general power to extend the time for making an application. Under s 223(11), however, the power cannot be used to extend time in relation to “prescribed actions”.[1] One of those prescribed actions related to s 71(2):

(b) filing, during the term of a standard patent under subsection 71(2) of the Act, an application under subsection 70(1) of the Act for an extension of the term of the patent; ….

Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ, after noting the long history in patents legislation of the power to apply for an extension of time, even after the time had expired, as an important safety valve in the system, ruled that s 71(2) specified 2 requirements. The first time requirement is that the application must be filed within the term of the standard patent. The second time requirement was that the application must also satisfy at least one of the requirements set out in paragraphs (a) – (c).

Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ held, however, that reg. 22.11 applied only to the first requirement: that the application was made within the term of the standard patent. Their Honours considered this was important otherwise a “gap” could arise between when a patent expired but was then restored. That would be highly undesirable.[2] In contrast, there was no policy reason why reg. 22.11 should apply to the second time requirement. At [71]:

There is nothing in any of the extrinsic materials, or in the long policy debates on simplifying extensions of term, which would suggest any rationale for excluding the second time requirement from the remedial power to extend time under s 223(2)(a). Alphapharm’s senior counsel conceded, correctly, that if Alphapharm’s construction of reg 22.11(4)(b) were correct, the remedial power in s 223(2)(a) could never apply to extend time in relation to the second time requirement, no matter what the quality or provenance of any “error or omission” made in respect of that time. Alphapharm’s construction would introduce an inexplicable asymmetry between a patentee and a competitor opposing a s 70(1) application. An opponent can access the general remedial power to extend times cast upon it in mandatory terms[102]. Had it been the legislature’s intention to exclude the second time requirement in s 71(2) from the general remedial power in s 223(2)(a), that would have been simple to accomplish.

Accordingly, s 223 could be invoked as Lundbeck had satisfied the first time requirement (and so did not need it to be extended) but needed an extension in relation to the second time requirement – which reg.22.11 did not apply to.

In dissent, Kiefel and Keane JJ rather tersely said at [111]:

s 71(2) cannot reasonably be read as referring to two actions. There is but one action referred to in s 71(2) – making an application for extension of the term of a patent. That one action is to be done on a date that satisfies the two requirements as to time set out in s 71(2). It is that action to which s 223(2) would apply, were it not for reg 22.11(4)(b).

Their Honours did explain why they considered policy and historical considerations did not lead to a different conclusion. Of potentially more general interest, however, their Honours took a different stand on the role of statutory interpretation at [121]:

In any event, as was said in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd, legislative history and extrinsic materials cannot displace the meaning of statutory text; nor is their examination an end in itself. (footnote omitted)

While acknowledging the primary role of the text, Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ invoked the more nuanced role of context espoused in CIC Insurance and Project Blue Sky.

A big bill coming? After the standard term of the patent expired but before the expiry of the extended term, Alphapharm and other generics commenced marketing their own versions of the drug.

Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2014] HCA 42


  1. The “prescribed actions” are found in reg. 22.11.  ?
  2. See Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ at [68].  ?

Parallel imports

Wednesday, October 8th, 2014

Well, it seems the 10th anniversary of IPwars has come and gone! Yes, the first IPwars blogpost (on the now defunct iBlog system) was back on 4 October 2004, inspired by Marty Schwimmer, Denise Howell, Evan Brown, Ernie the Attorney and others who were originally “Between Lawyers” but have since moved on to podcasting, video casting and other, bigger things.

In the meantime, my article on Trade Marks and Parallel Imports has been published in Volume 22 No. 1 of the Competition & Consumer Law Journal starting at p. 54. It is essentially an overview of the Federal Court’s case law on s 123(1) to date.

In the same issue of the CCLJ, you will also find articles by:

  • David Brennan “Shifting shades of grey – International price discrimination and Australian copyright” law starting at p. 1; and
  • Matthew Taylor and Arlen Duke “Refocussing the parallel import debate” starting at p. 54.

I am afraid the online versions of these papers are behind the LexisNexis paywall.

Happy anniversary! and thanks for stopping by, especially those of you who have left a comment.

Zima is a registrable trade mark

Thursday, September 25th, 2014

Mastronardi applied to register ZIMA as a trade mark in class 31 for tomatoes. The Registrar refused the application on the grounds that it was not inherently adapted to distinguish. Gordon J has now upheld Mastronardi’s appeal and directed the trade mark be registered.

Unknown

ZIMA sofar as anyone knows is an invented word; it has no meaning at all. Apparently, however, it is only ever used in relation to one “variety” of tomato. The Registrar refused the application on the basis that:

“the word ZIMA appears to be a reference to a single kind of tomato plant and its fruit” and that the trade mark “lacks any inherent adaptation to distinguish the Applicant’s tomatoes as it appears to be an appropriate description of the goods in respect of which it is to be used”.

As the trade mark had not been used in Australia before the date of the application to register it, therefore, it failed.

The question fell to be determined under the old form of s 41 (although it should be the same under the (it is hoped, more clearly expressed) new form. Thus, a sign is registrable as a trade mark if it is “inherently adapted to distinguish”. Both Mastronardi and the Registrar accepted on the appeal that, even under the old form of s 41, a sign is presumed to be inherently adapted to distinguish unless the Registrar (or the Court) is (positively) satisfied it is not.

A sign would not be inherently adapted to distinguish if other traders in such products would legitimately wish to use it to refer to those products even if they were not the applicant’s products. The issue turns on:

the likelihood that other persons, trading in goods of the relevant kind and being actuated only by proper motives – in the exercise, that is to say, of the common right of the public to make honest use of words forming part of the common heritage, for the sake of the signification which they ordinarily possess – will think of the word and want to use it in connexion with similar goods in any manner which would infringe a registered trade mark granted in respect of it.[1]

Consequently, Gordon J explained there were two questions that needed to be addressed:

(1) how would ZIMA be understood as at 25 July 2011[2] by ordinary Australians seeing it for the first time used in respect of tomatoes; and

(2) how likely is it that other persons, trading in tomatoes and being actuated only by proper motives, will think of the word ZIMA and want to use it in connexion with tomatoes in any manner which would infringe a registered trade mark granted in respect of it?

As it was an wholly invented word, with no meaning, the answer to the first question was easy: it wouldn’t convey any meaning.

The Registrar argued on the second question that ZIMA was in fact, and was treated by other traders, as the name of a particular variety of tomato. The expert evidence before the Court, however, disclosed that “variety” in the context of tomatoes was a very rubbery (no pun intended?) term and, while there were a few varieties of tomato registered under the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act, thousands were not.

More directly, Mastronardi’s evidence was that it did not source its ZIMA brand tomatoes from just one variety. In Australia, there are apparently 50 different cultivars of orange grape tomatoes; Mastronardi used only six of these and only two were supplied to it exclusively. Moreover, when it launched its product in Australia, it had been very careful in its usages referring to its ZIMATM golden grape tomatoes or sweet orange grape tomatoes or golden snacking tomatoes.

So, it followed that other tomato suppliers had a range of terms they could use to describe their own sweet orange/golden grape tomatoes and, therefore, ZIMA was inherently distinctive.

Her Honour’s decision highlights the importance of careful use of trade marks, particularly if there is a risk the trade mark may become the commonly accepted term for a variety or type: the trade mark should be used as an adjective and not as a noun (or verb). This is a problem that practices in the pharmaceutical industry have had to grow up to develop – a different name for the active ingredient to the “brand” name[3] – but, as this case shows, of potentially much wider application.

It is also interesting that her Honour has directed that the trade mark be registered rather than accepted and advertised.[4]

Mastronardi Produce Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2014] FCA 1021


  1. Kitto J in Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511 at 514.  ?
  2. The date of Mastronardi’s application to register its trade mark in Australia.  ?
  3. See also s. 25.  ?
  4. Which in some cases carries the risk of opposition.  ?

Fraudulent imitation

Monday, September 22nd, 2014

The Full Court has dismissed both Bluescope’s appeal and Gram’s cross-appeal from the ruling that Bluescope infringed Gram’s registered design for the Smartascreen fencing panel.

This is an “old Act” case.[1] At first instance, Jacobson J held that Bluescope’s product was an obvious imitation of Gram’s registered design. However, his Honour rejected the allegation that it was also a fraudulent imitation.

Bluescope (then Lysaghts, part of BHP) had long been the market leader for fencing made from metal sheeting. There was a problem, however: one side of the fence was less desirable because the posts and rails supporting the cladding were visible. Gram came up with its Gramline solution which was symmetrical, looking the same from both sides. It quickly usurped Bluescope’s position as the market leader. Bluescope then spent (roughly) 6 years trying to come up with a competing design. In the course of doing so, it rejected a number of alternatives in favour of one that so closely resembled Gram’s product that the two could be stacked one on top of the other.

AU 121344

AU 121344

Smartascreen

Smartascreen

Construction of the design

Besanko and Middleton JJ endorsed the trial judge’s principles for construing the design, summarising them at [28]:

(a) a design is the mental picture of a shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation of the article to which it is to be applied;

(b) construction is a question of fact for the Court to determine by the eye alone;

(c) expert evidence may be led to assist the Court;

(d) the Court is to apply an ‘instructed eye’ to the design – that is the Court must be made aware of the characteristics of the article to which the design is applied, and the manner in which such articles would normally be found in trade, commerce and in use; and

(e) however, considerations of utility have no relevance to the proper construction of a design.

In applying those principles, the trial judge found

“the primary feature was the sawtooth pattern consisting of six identical repeating pans, oriented vertically. The sawtooth pattern was the product of the unique proportions of the wavelength, amplitude and angles of each sawtooth module”.

It was this combination of features, which contributed to the symmetricality of the product, that ultimately conferred the design with novelty[2] and which were taken by Bluescope, leading to the finding of obvious imitation.[3] Three points of note on these parts of the case.

First, at [51] Besanko and Middleton JJ rejected Bluescope’s challenge to the trial judge’s reliance on Gram’s design being viewed vertically as an in-fill sheet between posts so that the saw-tooth ran top to bottom:

While considerations of utility are not relevant, designs cannot be construed without context. It is often the case that features of the article to which the design applies, will serve both visual and functional purposes. Where this is the case, the implication of BlueScope’s submission is that the feature’s appearance and utility must be divorced. However, a design without context is a meaningless drawing. As Lockhart J observed in Dart Industries 15 IPR 403 at 408, the design is ‘the mental picture of the shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament of the article to which it has been applied’ (emphasis added). It is inescapable that the Design is for sheet metal fencing and the construction of the Design must reflect this.[4]

That is, because the design was for a sheet metal fencing panel which “worked” in one way, it should be interpreted in the way (presumably) those who would use it for that would understand it.

Secondly, the trial judge had not impermissibly referred to the fact that the Bluescope product could be “nested” with the Gram product (embodying the design). But, it was not the fact of “nestability” as such that was important. Rather, it was relevant because it was helpful in forming a view about the similarity of the sawtooth profile. Besanko and Middleton JJ explained at [89]:

the nesting qualities are instructive. As has been discussed at length, the combination of amplitudes, wavelengths and angles create the sawtooth profile. For the GramLine and Smartascreen sheets to nest, albeit imperfectly, they must by logical extension, have similar amplitudes, wavelengths and angles. This is clearly helpful in deciding if Smartascreen is an obvious imitation of GramLine, and it was entirely open for the primary judge to be assisted by the nesting properties of the two articles. It is further relevant because as noted above, an obvious imitation is not one which is the same as the design, but one that is an imitation apparent to the eye notwithstanding slight differences.

Care definitely needs to be taken with this as the physical embodiment of the registered design is not always the same as the design and the comparison must be between the accused product and the registered design. It is important to note, therefore, that the Full Court treated this as confirming or reinforcing the view based on comparison of the appearance of the infringing article to the registered design.

Thirdly, the Full Court considered the trial judge had impermissibly taken into account Bluescope’s commercial objectives – to introduce a product to compete with the Gramline product – in deciding whether or not the Smartascreen was an obvious imitation. With respect that must be right as the test of obvious imitation is an objective test based on visual resemblance. Yates J, however, was prepared to accept at [198] to [201] evidence such as that Bluescope was attracted to the design because “it had a similar appearance to the GramLine sawtooth profile and would gain ready market acceptance” as a kind of expert evidence about the similarity of Bluescope’s product to Gram’s design.

Fraudulent imitation

In Polyaire, the High Court rejected the interpretation of fraudulent imitation which had required the alleged infringer to have attempted to disguise its copying. Instead, the High Court had said at [17]:

the application of a “fraudulent imitation” requires that the application of the design be with knowledge of the existence of the registration and of the absence of consent to its use, or with reason to suspect those matters, and that the use of the design produces what is an “imitation” within the meaning of par (a). This, to apply the general principle recently exemplified in Macleod v The Queen, is the knowledge, belief or intent which renders the conduct fraudulent.

At [36], the High Court approved Lehane J’s formulation of the test for fraudulent imitation in the following terms:

[T]he essential questions are, first, whether the allegedly infringing design is based on or derived from the registered design and, then, whether the differences are so substantial that the result is not to be described as an imitation. ….

In this case, the trial judge considered that fraudulent imitation required a finding that the infringing product was deliberately based on the registered design. The Besanko and Middleton JJ endorsed that test at [115]:

In our opinion, it must be shown that there was deliberate, in the sense of conscious, copying for there to be fraudulent imitation. If imitation imports the notion of making use of the registered design, there must be at least a conscious use of the registered design before it could be concluded there was fraudulent imitation.

The trial judge had found that:

  • Bluescope knew the Gramline design was registered;
  • Bluescope knew that Gram had achieved runaway commercial success with its product;
  • Bluescope was trying to design a “Gram lookalike”;
  • Bluescope had come up with a number of different symmetrical designs to Gram’s design, but rejected those in favour of the Smartascreen design; and
  • Bluescope had adopted a panel size of 762mm which was the same as Gram’s but different to the standard 820mm panel prevailing in the industry at the time.

His Honour was also “sceptical” of Bluescope’s claim that the resemblance to Gram’s design was coincidental. Gram argued that, given these findings, what other conclusion could there be but deliberate copying.

The Full Court upheld the trial judge’s refusal to find the Smartascreen was deliberately based on the Gramline design. Two factors seem to have played an important role here.

First, the Full Court accepted at [118] that an allegation of fraudulent imitation was a serious matter and the level of proofs needed to reflect the gravity of that.

Secondly, the evidence showed that the Bluescope employees who came up with the final design from 2000 onwards were influenced by, or at least referred to, design work done by a Mr Field in 1996.

Mr Field did not give evidence so it was not clear on the evidence what influences or references he made use of. Now, in many cases, the unexplained failure of a key player in the design process to give evidence (especially when there are inferences (at least) suggestive of copying available) might be sufficient to give rise to a Jones v Dunkel that the witness could not say anything helpful to the defendant’s case. Here, however, Mr Field’s absence was explained: he was old and in very poor health. His design work had taken place in 1996 very early in the picture. Moreover, Bluescope’s product had been introduced in 2002. Gram had of course known about it pretty much straightaway, but had delayed until 2010 before taking action. One may speculate, therefore, that the Court was not willing to allow Gram the benefit of negative inferences when its own delay had contributed to the witness being unavailable.

BlueScope Steel Limited v Gram Engineering Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 107


  1. Given the transitional provisions, there are potentially almost 6 more years for designs for designs under the old Act to still be in force. Design applications that were pending on 17 June 2004, when the 2003 Act came into force, continue to be governed by the old Act’s provisions for validity and infringement unless they were “converted” to “new” Act designs.  ?
  2. Full Court at [63], [71] – [72] (Besanko and Middleton JJ), [163] – [181] (Yates J).  ?
  3. Full Court at [89] – [93], with a useful summary of the key principles at [82] (Besanko and Middleton JJ). There were differences between the Smartascreen’s appearance and the registered design, but these were treated as insubstantial: [] (Besanko and Middleton JJ) and [188]ff (Yates J).  ?
  4. Yates J to similar effect at e.g. [166], [174].  ?

Online copyright infringement – back to drawing board

Thursday, September 11th, 2014

The way the press is reporting it, the Minister for Communications – one of the two Ministers who released the Online Copyright Infringement discussion paper in July – recognises it’s back to the drawing board in light of the (apparently) unanimous disapproval.

SMH

News

You can find the submissions received here (apparently they are being uploaded over time).

Will the ISPs voluntarily sit down and negotiate a warning system with the copyright owners? Do we really want the copyright owners and the ISPs coming up with their own scheme without “our” input?

Refusing a lapsed patent application and other powers of the Commissioner

Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

The Commissioner of Patents has power to refuse an application even after it has lapsed (but is still capable of revival by payment of “late” fees). The Full Court has also affirmed the Commissioner’s power to set a two month time limit for response (especially where she actually allows six months) and to institute a hearing on her own motion.

In some ways, this is a “silly” case, but it does explain how the application process and restoration of a lapsed application works. The chronology was as follows:

  • In December 2011, Miles requested examination of his patent application.
  • In May 2012, the Commissioner’s delegate raised objections to grant, giving Miles two months in which to overcome the objections or risk the Commissioner making a direction to amend under s 107 or refusing the application.
  • Miles did not respond.
  • In September 2012 (i.e., 4 months later), the Commissioner wrote advising that, as no response had been received, the matter would be set down for hearing and allowing one month for submissions to be filed. The Commissioner’s letter warned that it was possible for the Commissioner to refuse the application or direct amendment and inviting Miles to submit his own amendments.
  • October 2012 was the fifth anniversary of the application and continuation fees were payable. Miles did not pay the continuation fees.
  • On 1 November 2012, the Commissioner refused Miles’ application on the basis that objections to grant had been appropriately raised and not overcome.
  • On 28 March 2013, Miles paid the continuation fee (under s 142) and sought to amend the patent application.

The Commissioner said “bad luck, your application has already been refused” (or words to that effect).

Miles sought judicial review under s 39B of the Judiciary Act unsuccessfully. The Full Court (Bennett, Greenwood and Middleton JJ) dismissed his appeal.

Miles’ first argument was that the Commissioner had no power to refuse his application (in November 2012) because his application had already lapsed in October 2012 when he failed to pay the continuation fees.

The Full Court was having none of that. It was predicated on a misunderstanding of reg. 13.3(1) and 13.3(1A). Section 142(2)(d) provides that a patent application lapses if the applicant does not pay a continuation fee within the “prescribed period”. What constitutes the “prescribed period” is defined by reg. 13.3(1) and (1A):

(1) For paragraph 142(2)(d) of the Act:

>(a) a continuation fee for an application for a standard patent is payable for a relevant anniversary at the last moment of the anniversary; and

>(b) the period in which the fee must be paid is the period ending at the last moment of the anniversary.

(1A) However, if the continuation fee is paid within 6 months after the end of the relevant anniversary (6 month period):

>(a) the period mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) is taken to be extended until the fee is paid; and

>(b) the continuation fee includes the additional fee stated in item 211 of Schedule 7; and

>(c) the additional fee is payable from the first day of the 6 month period.

Reg. 13.3(1) and (1A) were not to be read in some bifurcated manner, but in combination. This meant that, if the continuation fee was paid in the 6 month grace period, the “prescribed period” was extended up until the date the fee was paid, i.e. 28 March 2013. As the continuation fee was paid in this case within the 6 month period, therefore, the application was still on foot when the Commissioner refused it in November 2012.

The Full Court went on to reject Miles’ arguments that the Commissioner had no power to set a two month time limit for response to the Examiner’s report in May 2012[1] or to unilaterally institute a hearing.

One “odd” outcome of this, however, is that Miles’ application would indeed have lapsed in October 2012 if he had not paid the continuation fee in the grace period. In that case, the Commissioner would not have had power to refuse the application. I am not sure how that would help Miles either as, presumably, by that stage it would be too late to file another application.

Miles v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 109


  1. The Full Court essentially adopted the primary judge’s reasons at [55] to [93] and pointed out that Miles had been given opportunitites to address the grounds of objection and had failed to take any of them up.  ?