Bohemia Crystal shattered

Like MICHIGAN for farm equipment and OXFORD for books, Burley J has ordered that Bohemia Crystal’s trade marks, BOHEMIA and BOHEMIA CRYSTAL be revoked because they are not distinctive of “glassware”.

Bohemia Crystal (BCP) had been formed in 1975 to distribute in Australia Skloexport’s products. Skloexport was the State-owned entity responsible for the export of all crystal and glassware products made in Czechoslovakia. In 1999, Skloexport went into liquidation and BCP took an assignment of its Australian trade marks. The main trade mark BCP used in this period, which had been registered since 1962 was the stylised BOHEMIA Glass mark, TM No. 319701:

Versions of this mark were used with or without the words “Made in Czech Republic” or substituting the word “Glass” for “Crystal”.

On 5 October 2001, BCP applied for and successfully registered BOHEMIA CRYSTAL for glassware and on 2 May 2003 BCP applied for and successfully registered BOHEMIA for glassware.

Host is an importer and supplier of catering goods and equipment in Australia. The business was started in 1999. One range within its 2,500 product lines is its range of glassware sourced from another Czech supplier, Forincorp, marketed under BANQUET BY BOHEMIA [1] or:

Host started importing this line in 2015. BCP made the fateful decision to start proceedings for infringement of its registered trade marks and contravention of the Australian Consumer Law for false and misleading conduct.

Burley J held that BCP’s trade marks lacked any capacity to distinguish and had not been used in such a way as to have acquired secondary meaning for the purposes of s 41(6).[2] Burley J also dismissed BCP’s allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct.

It is not going to be possible in a blog post to do justice to Burley J’s 376 paragraphs. Instead five points particularly caught my eye.

First, Burley J (who was a very experienced intellectual property barrister before his appointment) pointed out that the High Court in Cantarella referenced both ordinary consumers and traders as the criterion for whether or not a sign was inherently adapted to distinguish.

BCP argued that the test focused on what ordinary consumers would think the sign meant. It had found an expert who opined that ordinary members of the public would think “bohemia” was a reference to persons with an artistic or unconventional lifestyle.

After analysing Cantarella from [86] on, his Honour concluded at [93]:[3]

in a case such as the present, it is necessary to consider the ordinary signification of the words “Bohemia” and “Bohemia Crystal” in the context of the “target audience”, being traders and consumers of the relevant goods, to determine whether at the relevant dates other traders might legitimately desire to use these words or something similar in connection with their goods, for the ordinary signification which they possess. …. (emphasis supplied)

Here, despite the evidence of BCP’s principle witness, the evidence was largely one way. It was beyond dispute that for many centuries the geographic region known as “Bohemia” which is now in the Czech Republic had a strong reputation for producing high quality crystal and glassware. There was evidence that between at least four and ten different manufacturers used the term “Bohemia” at an important annual glassware trade show to signify the geographic origins of their products. There was also evidence from a number of dealers that the term signified to the public glassware originating from the Bohemia region. BCP’s own registered user agreements for the use of Skloexport’s trade marks had also required it to promote its products as from the geographic region, Bohemia.

Burley J concluded that other traders who had glassware manufactured in the region formerly known as Bohemia legitimately and honestly wanted to use that word to describe the geographic origins of their products. The fact that Bohemia was no longer a separate country (and had not been since the World War I) and not even the contemporary name of the region was not significant.[4]

Second, Burley J found that the evidence of use of the BOHEMIA and BOHEMIA CRYSTAL did not establish that those terms had been used by BCP as trade marks or in such a way as to have acquired secondary meaning. There were three aspects to this conclusion.

Following BP v Woolworths, promotion and use is not enough. It had to be shown that the signs as registered had been used in some way to identify the signs as being trade marks.

Next, for the most part the relevant evidence showed that what BCP had been using as a trade mark was Skloexport’s composite mark, not the terms as registered. This was not use of either trade mark as registered. Moreover it was the combination of the elements in the signs as a whole which comprised the distinctiveness. These signs should not be dissected into their component parts:

228 I have some difficulty with the proposition that the words “Bohemia” or “Bohemia Crystal” should in this context be regarded as having separate trade mark signification beyond the combination in which they appear in the composite marks described above. In my view, it is the combination of elements that is distinctive. The trade mark should be viewed as a whole and not dissected into parts. Although this is likely to be a matter of fact for each case, it is notable that several cases have cautioned against the proposition that separate elements should be so distilled; see Diamond T Motor Car Company [1921] 2 Ch 583 at 588, Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2) [2012] FCA 81; (2012) 201 FCR 565 at [61], [63].

229 To my eye, the whole of the 701 mark is to be regarded as creating a complicated image that taken collectively represents a sign, or badge of origin. I do not think that the elements within it may be dissected or that they would be dissected by an ordinary consumer of goods within the relevant classes. In any event, I consider that the words “Bohemia Crystal” and “Made in Czech Republic” within the 701 mark tend to reinforce the descriptive, geographical signification of those words. ….

The third factor is the way that evidence was advanced did not help BCP’s case. A lot of the evidence was vague, or general, rather than specific to what needed to be proved here: use of the signs as trade marks before the filing date. In this respect, his Honour’s discussion will repay careful study as it is not uncommon to see evidence prepared for the Office suffering from similar problems.

Third, BCP did not demonstrate any sufficient reason why its trade marks should not be removed from the Register. Burley J accepted that, Host having established the marks were invalidly registered, BCP bore the onus of satisfying the Court that there was sufficient reason not to order cancellation.

Here, the evidence did not establish that BCP had acquired distinctiveness in its signs. Importantly, allowing BCP to keep its registrations would give it an unfair advantage. At [248], his Honour explained:

…. The presence of the existing ground of revocation via the operation of subsection 88(2)(a) and s 41 indicates an intention on the part of the legislature to ensure that historical registrations should not remain on the Register where they should not have been granted in the first place. In the present case, to permit such a course would advantage the unmeritorious registrant who has incorrectly had the benefit of the monopoly since the relevant dates. BCP is able to apply to register the Bohemia marks now, should it choose to do so.

Of course, if it were to do so, it would run the risk of other traders wishing to use the terms opposing (if the Registrar got suckered into accepting the applications in the first place).

Fourth, if his Honour had not found BCPs trade marks invalidly registered, Host would have infringed. Its attempt to rely on s 122(1)(b) would have failed. This part of the case essentially turned on Host’s use being BANQUET by Bohemia (emphasis supplied) rather than BANQUET from Bohemia.

Burley J accepted that s 122 could be invoked to protect trade mark use, not just descriptive use. However, Host’s form of use showed that Host was trying to assert origin in some particular trade source rather than some geographical origin. At [301]:

…. Ms Flint and Mr Sullivan adopted this language, notwithstanding the obvious difficulty with the perception of “by” and with no knowledge of either BCP or the Bohemia marks. However, I find that they did not do so for the purpose of using “Bohemia” to designate the geographical origin of the goods, but to designate the trade origin of the goods lying in a particular entity (which was ultimately Forincorp). Accordingly, the use does not fall within the defence ….

Fifth, BCP’s allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct also failed. A number of factors contributed to this including the particular trade marks BCP had actually used and the good old-fashioned Hornsby Building Information Centre proposition.[5] In contrast to the trade mark case, in addition, it was highly significant that Host’s market and BCP’s market were quite different. BCP’s market was member of the general public looking for premium quality products. Host’s customers, however, were cafes, restaurants, pubs, clubs, community groups and the like who were cost conscious but attended to their purchases with considerable care. So, for example, at [370]:

the typical reasonable consumer is most likely to perceive the October 2015 catalogue use to represent that the manufacturer or producer of the glassware is an entity known as “Banquet by Bohemia” or “Bohemia”, there is no more than a remote prospect that reasonable customers are likely to consider that the goods offered in the catalogue are offered with the sponsorship or approval of BCP or are offered by Host with the approval of BCP or that the Banquet products emanate from BCP. First, I do not consider that the typical Host customer who encounters this publication would be likely to be aware of BCP. Secondly, I consider that any Host customers who are aware of BCP would understand it to be a retailer of a range of glassware products sold under a range of different brands. Thirdly, to the extent that such customers perceive that BCP has a trade connection with products that it sells, those customers are likely to do so by reference to the common use of the 701 mark or the modified 701 mark. Without the presence of that mark, in my view they are unlikely to consider that the word “Bohemia” as it appears in the impugned uses connotes a connection or association with BCP. Needless to say, no such mark appears in the October 2015 catalogue. Fourthly, such customers would also be influenced by the geographical nature of the term and the material differences between the Host and BCP products such as price, quantity and quality. ….

Bohemia Crystal Pty Ltd v Host Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 235


  1. It also used BANQUET CRYSTAL BY BOHEMIA, CZECH CRYSTAL BY BOHEMIA and expressions like BANQUET FLUTE.  ?
  2. Given the filing dates of BCP’s trade marks, the original form of s 41 applied.  ?
  3. See also [153] – [155].  ?
  4. At [161], Burley J pointed out that PERSIA in the Persian Fetta case and Peking and Ceylon still retained their signification as place names.  ?
  5. If you are going to use a descriptive expression, you have to accept a certain degree of confusion is inevitable.  ?

My Angel is a …*

Rares J has ordered that Centrefold Entertainment’s trade mark registration for CENTREFOLD, No 1695466, be expunged from the Register on the grounds that it is not capable of distinguishing “Entertainment’s” services.

Both Entertainment and Metro are in the business of providing “promo models” and adult entertainment services.[1] Metro promoted its services under the sign “Centrefold Strippers”. Having secured its registration for CENTREFOLD, Entertainment sued Metro for infringement. Things did not turn out how it hoped!

Entertainment argued that CENTREFOLD was a “covert and skilful allusion to its services, not descriptive of them.” It argued that the ordinary meaning of the word was of a person or the particular pages in particular types of magazine.

Rares J rejected this argument on the grounds that the word registered was a “noun” and not an adjective. However, Entertainment used the word in an adjectival sense as part of the composite mark “Centrefold Entertainment”. Hmmm.

Perhaps more compellingly, his Honour pointed out at [93] that there were at least three businesses in the adult entertainment field using names which included CENTREFOLD: Centrefold Lounge, Centrefold Strippers (i.e., Metro) and Centrefold Entertainment itself.

Also, the evidence showed that models who had achieved the status of being Centrefolds, promoted themselves as such and could often command a premium for their services.

In these circumstances, the word was not metaphorical or allusive. At [101], his Honour explained:

“Centrefold” is an ordinary English word that is apt to describe the kinds, qualities and characteristics of performers, models and others, as persons who appear, or have appeared or are prepared to appear, nude or scantily clad before strangers and in pages of magazines. Any supplier of adult entertainment services of the kind comprised in the designated services, without improper motive, might desire to use the word “centrefold” to describe that supplier’s services. That is because of the ordinary signification of the word: Cantarella 254 CLR at 358 [58].[2]

Next, his Honour held that Entertainment’s use of “Centrefold” was not sufficiently substantial to warrant registration under (the “new” version of) s 41(4).

Bear in mind that the trade mark was registered from 22 May 2015.

It appears to have been common ground that Entertainment had not used “Centrefold” alone before it applied to register its trade mark.

Secondly, until about March 2014 (i.e. just over a year before the filing date of the trade mark), the principal of Entertainment had been running two businesses, “XXX Princess” and “Centrefold Entertainment”. XXX Princess was the business promoting the adult entertainment services – by reference to XXX Princess. As part of a deliberate strategy, Centrefold Entertainment’s website and Facebook page did not explicitly promote adult entertainment services. It was only from March 2014 that Entertainment’s website explicitly promoted adult entertainment services by reference to its composite mark (see below). In that period (March 2014 to May 2015), the evidence showed Entertainment had only 2,000 customers. Rares J ruled at [107]:

It is unlikely that the limited use of “centrefold” in Entertainment’s dealings with perhaps, at maximum, the 2,000 individuals who made the bookings (but none of whom, on the evidence, ever received a tax invoice), would have brought its name to their attention, or that of others who may have telephoned the business, as a brand or trade mark rather than, if at all, as a mere reference to a business name. This limited usage would not have brought into the public consciousness the use of “centrefold” as a brand or trade mark in association with the designated services of Entertainment.

The evidence also showed that neither Entertainment nor Metro spent much (if anything) by way of Google AdWords on “centrefold”, focusing their expenditure instead on “strippers” and “waitresses”. There was also evidence a mere 0.39% of hits on Metro’s “Centrefold Strippers” website came via “centrefold”.[3]

Now that all seems uncontroversial. There are some potentially problematic issues.

First, here is one of Entertainment’s Facebook posts from 6 May 2013:

It appears that that was essentially the form of Entertainment’s page from at least early 2012.

One might think that was use of the composite mark as a trade mark for adult entertainment services, albeit not use of the trade mark as registered alone. It seems that the phone number appearing in the ads was a common phone number for XXX Princess and Entertainment and, as already noted, Entertainment’s case seems to have been that the performers were actually arranged by “XXX Princess”. That said, I am rather mystified what Entertainment’s page was doing.

Secondly, there was some evidence of a period late in 2012 where the principal of Entertainment answered the telephone to those calling in to book a performer “Centrefold Entertainment”. It appeared likely that, if the caller was surprised they had not reached XXX Princess, that some business patter was deployed to dispel any confusion. His Honour unsurprisingly, with respect, characterised that use in effect as de minimis.

Thirdly, Entertainment’s evidence was that from September 2012, invoices to all customers were sent out under the composite mark. There was a glitch in the system, however, so it appears no-one received them. Somehow, the performers and Entertainment got paid.

There was also evidence from at least one of the performers that she sent (at least) one invoice for her services into Entertainment by reference to the composite mark. Rares J, however, discounted this as evidence of use on the basis that which entity they were billing was hardly of any moment to the performers and they were rather confused about which company or website they were providing their services through.

The passing off and ACL claims by each party against the other failed on a straightforward application of the Hornsby Building Information Centre case.

By reference to the use of the word “may” in s 126, Rares J considered that the power to grant an injunction was discretionary. If his Honour had not found the trade mark invalid, Rares J would have refused an injunction on the basis of “lack of clean hands”. In promoting its services on the web, Entertainment used photographs of scantily clad young ladies. 90% of the photographs, however, were not of any of its models. They were photographs found on the Internet, including from sources such as “Sports Illustrated”. The Court would not condone such deceptive practices through the coercive power of an injunction.

Metro Business Centre Pty Ltd v Centrefold Entertainment Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1249

  • with apologies to Seth Justman and the J Geils Band.

  1. Apparently, a “promo model” is someone who provides his or her services to promote a business by, for example, handing out advertising or business cards in a public venue, or acting as an adornment at an event, such as appearing in a manufacturer’s clothing or livery at a trade or motor show. They do not appear naked, or partially naked and get paid $20 – $30 per hour. An adult entertainer (or, often, a “stripper”) would perform naked or partially naked and could earn 10 to 20 times that for a 20 – 30 minute show.  ?
  2. Entertainment’s case was no doubt “assisted” by its principal’s evidence to the effect that he had never heard the term being used to describe “centrefolds”!  ?
  3. The Google Analytics report showed almost 830,000 hits on the website for the relevant period.  ?

Primary Health Care is not registrable as a trade mark

You will probably not be surprised to discover that PRIMARY HEALTH CARE is not registrable as a trade mark. You may, however, be surprised that the successful challenger was the Commonwealth of Australia.

Primary Health Care Limited (PHC) applied to register PRIMARY HEALTH CARE and

Primary Health Care logo
Primary Health Care logo

in class 35 for:[1]

Medical centre business management; medical centre business administration; service provider to medical professionals, namely provider of: administrative support services, billing and invoicing services, reception and telephone answering services, patient booking services, patient file management services including management of access to patient files, typing services, account-keeping and book-keeping services, preparation of business reports, systemisation of information into computer databases, professional business consultancy, computerised file management, business and information management services, ordering services, processing of purchase orders.

What PHC did was it bought or built a building for use as a medical practice. It set up the rooms and facilities and provided the staff such as receptionists, book keepers etc. Then it contracted with medical practitioners (mostly GPs) to work from the medical centre, using the staff and facilities PHC made available to provide their services. PHC argued that it used its trade marks only in providing those services to the medical practitioners and the trade marks were not used by it in providing medical services to the medical practitioners’ patients. Thus, it said, it was not using the trade marks for medical services, only for business management and administration services – services for which the expression PRIMARY HEALTH CARE was not an apt description. At [53]:

The applicant’s case is that the Services are all to be provided to health care professionals and are not to include clinical or medical care by those professionals to patients.

This argument was predicated on PHC’s clinics/centres not being called or promoted to the public as PRIMARY HEALTH CARE centres.[2]

Jagot J rejected PHC’s contention. Her Honour accepted that PHC’s marketing was directed to health care professionals rather than the public. Her Honour also accepted that the health care professionals provided the health care services to the patient and jealously guarded their clinical independence in deciding what clinical care to provide to the patient. So PHC was not actually providing medical or health care services to the patients per se. However, it was unrealistic to treat the services PHC provided as being services provided only to the health care professionals. They were also provided to the public. Jagot J explained what her Honour had in mind by reference to the medical centre’s receiptionist – who was employed by PHC. For example at [55] – [59]:

…. the person paying for the services, the medical professional, is not the only person who receives the services or, at the least, is not the only person concerned with the services. The Services include reception and telephone answering services, patient booking services, patient file management services, information management services, billing and invoicing services, computerised file management, and ordering services, all said to be “to medical professionals”. (emphasis supplied)

Assume then a member of the public who wishes to see a GP who is contracted to and has a practice located in one of the applicant’s medical centres (leaving aside, for the moment, the issue about Idameneo and how the marks have in fact been used). The patient calls the centre and speaks to a receptionist. On the applicant’s case, in answering the call, the receptionist is providing a service only to the GP the patient might wish to see and not to the patient. This is untenable. The GP who ultimately sees the patient pays for the service but the service cannot be said to be a service to the GP only. It is also a service to the patient, the cost of which is borne by the GP, at least insofar as the GP does not seek to recoup those costs in the consultation fee. ….

As a consequence, Jagot J found:

[64] As such, the focus of the applicant’s case is off target and at odds with the evidence. The consequences of this disconnect run through every aspect of the case. First, the Services cannot be considered as if they exist in isolation because that is not how the Services are provided. Second, no matter how often the applicant repeats it, I am unable to accept that the Services are directed only to GPs and health professionals; the public and other participants in the health care sector are provided with some of the Services and are potentially concerned with all of the Services. ….

[65] … the reality is that, at least insofar as the Services are concerned, the applicant is providing services to medical professionals within its centres, to patients of those centres, and to all other participants in health care who interact with any medical professional in one of its centres. The fact that the applicant (or Idameneo) receives payment for the provision of the Services directly from the medical professional does not mean that the Services are provided only to the medical professional. Nor does the fact that medical professionals understand that they alone provide clinical or medical services to patients mean that the Services are not provided to patients. The reasoning involved seems to involve a false syllogism: (i) only medical professionals provide clinical services to patients, (ii) the Services are not clinical services, (iii) therefore, the Services are necessarily not services to patients. Propositions (i) and (ii) may be accepted, but they do not lead to proposition (iii).

Therefore, when deciding what the ordinary signification of the words PRIMARY HEALTH CARE was, the relevant public was not just the health care professionals to whom the services were promoted but all other participants in the health care system including patients and potential patients.

For the public so defined, Jagot J then went on to find that the expression PRIMARY HEALTH CARE was directly descriptive and so not inherently adapted to distinguish at all under the old form of s 41(3) or capable of distinguishing under s 41(5) or in fact distinctive under s 41(6).[3]

At first blush her Honour’s ruling that the Services were being provided to the public (other than the medical practitioners) might seem questionable because, so far as I can make out from the judgment, no member of the public (apart from the medical practitioners of course) actually sees the sign PRIMARY HEALTH CARE being used as a trade mark. For example, patients were not given bills or receipts or prescriptions with PRIMARY HEALTH CARE emblazoned on them. Nor does it seem that the receptionist (or other ancillary staff) wore uniforms with the sign on them. If keywords are not used as a trade mark because they are “invisible”, one might think that the unseen expression PRIMARY HEALTH CARE was also not being used as a trade mark for the services provided to the public. As the Commonwealth pointed out, however, PRIMARY HEALTH CARE could be used on, for example, the uniforms if the trade mark were registered. So, taking into account fair notional use renders the “invisiblity” argument untenable.[4]

Perhaps the crucial consideration is that the services being provided by the receptionist and the other “ancillary” staff are just so closely bound up with the health care services being provided by the medical practitioner to be part of those services or taking their character from the primary services being offered at the clinic. This indeed appears to be what her Honour had in mind. So for example, her Honour said at [119]:

there is an unreal distinction at the heart of the applicant’s case between the provision of the Services and the provision of clinical or medical care. The distinction is unreal because the Services are part of the overall service a patient receives when attending a medical centre and, to some extent, are also part of the medical or clinical care a patient receives. It is part of medical care that a GP be able to access clinical records for a patient. It is part of medical care to ensure new records are accessible in the future. It is part of medical care for a patient’s referral to be properly recorded, stored and managed. It is part of medical care for the centre to have available necessary medical supplies. ….

and at [121]:

in the real world context in Australia (at least) the Services are inextricably bound up with the provision of medical and clinical services by general practitioners and allied healthcare professionals, including through medical centres and medical practices – they are ‘part and parcel’ of the practice of general medicine and allied healthcare in the community, of primary health care.

That way of looking at things, with respect, seems in accord with the reasons why the Full Court in the Chifley Tower case rejected the argument that an hotel was engaged in providing property management services.

Jagot J went on to find that an additional ground for refusing registration was that the trade marks were deceptive or confusing. They were deceptive or confusing because, although they were so closely bound up with the provision of medical services, the specification of services did not include medical services. On the other hand, use of the trade marks would be congtrary to law in contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law because use of the mark misrepresented that PHC provided medical services and further that PHC was responsible for the medical services provided by the medical practitioners at the centres.

Primary Health Care Limited v Commonwealth of Australia [2016] FCA 313 (Jagot J)


  1. The “Services”. In the course of the proceeding the specification of services went through a number of revisions. This is just the starting one, but it indicates the nature of what PHC wanted registration for.  ?
  2. There was a factual dispute whether PHC used PRIMARY HEALTH CARE as the name of 3 or 7 of its medical centres, but this seems to have been regarded as essentially de minimis.  ?
  3. Putting a simple box around the words didn’t improve matters.  ?
  4. This led PHC in one of its revised specifications of services to seek to “disclaim” such use under s33(2) and s 55(1)(b).  ?

Sir Walter …

Raleigh or Scott or … buffalo grass.

Yates J has upheld the Registrar’s refusal to register SIR WALTER for buffalo grass in class 31 on the grounds it lacked any capacity to distinguish and was not in fact distinctive.[1]

Buchanan Turf has a PBR for a variety of soft leaf buffalo grass called Sir Walter – PBR Certificate No. 1082. The variety is actually registered as “Sir Walter”. The PBR is due to expire on 27 March 2018. After that date, of course, anyone will be free to propagate and sell the Sir Walter variety. I wonder what they will call it?

For reasons best known to themselves, Buchanan Turf sought to amend the class 31 specification during the examination process to read:

Buffalo grass of the ‘Sir Walter’ variety (as lodged with the Registrar of Plant Breeder’s Rights (ref: certificate no. 1028), being part of the genus Stenotaphrum and a member of the species Secundatum.

Are you still wondering what the putative propagaters after March 2018 will be wanting to call their variety of lawn seed?

Applying the usual tests, Yates J found that Sir Walter had no inherent capacity to distinguish:

Here, the appellant developed a new thing—a new variety of buffalo grass having particular characteristics—which it called Sir Walter. Sir Walter is the given and proper name for the new variety. It has no other name. In this way, the name Sir Walter must be taken to be part of the common stock of language that denotes this particular variety of grass.

His Honour distinguished the Zima case on the basis that “Zima” was not the name of a variety of tomato.

Buchanan Turf argued its name had acquired distinctiveness – there had been over $16 million in sales since 1996 and some 68 licensed growers. There was also evidence of extensive television, radio and other media advertising; often featuring the terms Sir Walter in combination with a knight device,[2] almost invariably presenting the expression in quotes. One example of use without the device by way of illustration:

“Sir Walter” Premium lawn turf

Sir Walter Premium Lawn Turf is a superior quality soft buffalo grass giving unmatched performance for Australian conditions. Here you can find out all there is to know about this ideal, low maintenance lawn called ‘Sir Walter’. ….

His Honour considered that these types of use, even in specially marked out form, just identified the type of grass that was being used. In doing so, Yates J pointed out that just because the public had come to associate a term with a particular trader did not mean in functioned as a trade mark, relying on Jacob LJ’s dictum in the British Sugar case[3] and BP v Woolworths.

Where the name was used with the knight device, it was not sufficient to show that the combined device as a whole was distinctive, or had acquired distinctiveness. It was necessary to show that SIR WALTER alone had done so as the knight device was not part of the trade mark applied for. As with the standalone uses, in context the name just referred to the type of grass, not its trade source.

Yates J noted that there was no direct evidence from customers about what the name signified to them. This seems to be a recurrent theme in judicial comment. I wonder, however, what that evidence would need to disclose before the conclusion that any such customers just associated the name with Buchanan Turf could be overcome especially in circumstances where (a) it was the name of the variety and (b), until March 2018, there can be only one trade source?[4]

The PBR Act provides:[5]

A name … in respect of a plant variety must not:

(e) be or include a trade mark that is registered, or whose registration is being sought, under the Trade Marks Act 1995 , in respect of live plants, plant cells and plant tissues.

Yates J thought this provision evidenced a policy that rights to use a plant variety name after the PBR had expired should not be impeded by a trade mark registration which, of course, May last a lot longer than a PBR. However, there was no express prohibition in the Trade Marks Act, as there is with the names of patented things, against registering the name of a PBR as a trade mark.

Buchanan Turf Supplies Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2015] FCA 756


  1. Trade Marks Act 1995 s 41(6) (i.e., the old form).  ?
  2. One representation of the combination mark is shown in the Schedule. The knight device is itself a registered trade mark, No 882781.  ?
  3. TREAT: the relevant extract is set out at paragraph 34.  ?
  4. For one case where consumer type evidence was successfully led, see Philmac v Registrar of Trade Marks.  ?
  5. Plant Breeders Act 1994 s 27(5)  ?

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

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.  ?

ZIMA trade mark again

Tim Golder, the solicitor who successfully secured the ZIMA trade mark registration, has a 6 minute podcast:

  1. explaining why they succeeded and
  2. offering some useful tips on how to stop such sign becoming generic.

Zima is a registrable trade mark

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.  ?

An oro stamp and cinque stelle (or maybe not)

The Full Federal Court found that Cantarella Bros’ trade mark registrations for ORO and CINQUE STELLE, being “gold” and “five stars” in Italian, lacked any inherent capacity to distinguish coffee in Australia.

Last Friday, 14 March, the High Court granted Cantarella special leave to appeal from that decision.

From the transcript, it appears that neither side disputes the basic test to be applied:

[T]he question whether a mark is adapted to distinguish [is to] be tested 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.

Canatarella’s complaint seems to be that the Full Court found the words lacked capacity to distinguish even though it did not overturn the trial judge’s finding that the words had no meaning to the general public. That is, the question seems to be in applying that test, particularly in the context of foreign language words, must the word(s) have a descriptive meaning to the consuming public (as opposed to the traders in the goods).

  1. Cantarella Bros Pty Limited  v Modena Trading Pty Limited (S202/2013)

Transcript of special leave application here.

A coffee free-for-all and a trade mark cancellation

Last month, the Full Court overturned the trial Judge’s ruling that Modena had infringed Cantarella’s registered trade marks for ORO and CINQUE STELLA for coffee. Instead, revoking the registrations on the basis that they were not capable of distinguishing. Barrister Sue Gatford provides another guest post explaining why.

In 2000 Cantarella, the vendor of Vittoria coffee, applied for and obtained registration in Australia and elsewhere of the Italian words ORO and CINQUE STELLE as trade marks. Translated into English ORO means GOLD and CINQUE STELLE means FIVE STAR. Cantarella had used these words (and others) in Australia for various of its coffee blends for a very long time.

An Italian company, Molinari, had used ORO and CINQUE STELLE for its coffee for a similarly long time, and since 1997 had imported that coffee into Australia. Many other coffee companies, including Lavazza and Coffee Mio, use ORO to describe one or more of their coffee products. On the evidence, no-one other than Cantarella and Molinari appear to have used CINQUE STELLE.

In 2011 Cantarella sued Modena, Molinari’s Australian importer. It alleged that the Café Molinari Oro and Café Molinari Cinque Stella products that Modena imported and sold in Australia were infringing Cantarella’s registered trade marks. The Federal Court initially agreed. Last month though, the Full Court overturned that decision and ordered the cancellation of Cantarella’s trade marks.

The judgment revisits the long standing and often quoted test, set out by Kitto J in Clark Equipment, for determining when a mark is inherently adapted to distinguish, viz:-

[T]he question whether a mark is adapted to distinguish [is to] be tested 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.[1]

In Clark Equipment registration of the word MICHIGAN for tractors that came from Michigan, USA was refused. The High Court considered that as Michigan was a well known manufacturing centre at a later time other traders might, without improper motive, want to use the word Michigan in describing other tractors they wanted to sell.

Similarly, the Full Court said that Italy being a common source of coffee and the Italian language having invaded the English language in the coffee sphere with words such as cappuccino, cafe latte and the like, it was likely that other traders would, without improper motive, be likely to want to use descriptive Italian words, including ORO and CINQUE STELLE, in relation to their coffee.

The Full Court considered that the trial judge put too much emphasis on the fact that Australian consumers generally (the so called “ordinary English-speaking people in Australia”) were unlikely to know what ORO and CINQUE STELLE meant. Rather, the Court said, the proper enquiry was whether other traders would want to use those words. The Full Court was less concerned than the trial judge with whether the English meaning of the words was widely understood (How many people who order a cappuccino know what the word cappuccino means in English?) but did point out that Italian was the second most widely spoken language in Australia in any event.

In terms of the appropriate legal test, the Full Court said that the reference to “the common right of the public” by Kitto J in Clark Equipment was a reference to the common right of other traders as a sub-section of the public.[2] Crucially, they found that the evidence supported a finding that ORO and CINQUE STELLA were:-

“known in the coffee trade according to their ordinary signification as words descriptive of the quality of coffee products and have been used in that sense, although not as trade marks, for a significant period of time extending well before Cantarella’s registration of its marks and afterwards”.[3]

Interestingly, the Court did not differentiate between the evidence of the use by other traders of ORO (there were many) and the evidence as to the use by other traders of CINQUE STELLE (there were none). This is perhaps because the test is what other traders might want to do, not what they have actually done. So while proof of actual use is convincing proof of a (fulfilled) desire to use, an absence of actual use is equivocal – it may just mean that other traders haven’t as yet decided to use the particular word or words, not that they won’t ever decide to use them.

So it would seem that the Australian coffee world can resume use of the descriptive splendour of the Italian language without fear of trade mark infringement for the time being. The Clark Equipment test as clarified by the Full Court in Modena is also alive and well.

Modena Trading Pty Ltd v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 110 (Mansfield, Jacobson & Gilmour JJ)


  1. Clark Equipment Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 51 at 514.  ?
  2. Modena at [74].  ?
  3. Modena at [97].  ?

The Raising the Bar Bill

Senator Carr introduced the Intellectual Property Laws (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 into Parliament today.

Press release

Download the text of the Bill and EM from here (choose your own format).

You will remember that (according to the Press Release) the main objects of the Bill include:

  • raising patent standards to ensure Australian innovators are well placed to take their inventions to the world;
  • increasing penalties for trade mark counterfeiters;
  • improvements to border security measures for goods that infringe copyright and trade marks;
  • providing free access to patented inventions for researchers; and
  • cutting red tape and delays when seeking an IP right.

While there have no doubt been modifications to the text of the Exposure Draft (and Patentology flags a big change to the transitional provisions for the new patentability standards), you can get a very good feel for what the various parts of the Bill are trying to achieve:

in relation to patents from Dr Summerfield’s 8 part series over at Patentology:

  1. Part 1: inventive standard
  2. Part 2: usefulness
  3. Part 3: provisional specifications
  4. Part 4: enablement
  5. Part 5: claims supported by description
  6. Part 6: experimental use
  7. Part 7: miscellanea including standard of proof
  8. Part 8: transitional

Kim Weatherall also commented on a number of aspects, exploring in particular the (proposed) trade mark criminal offences.

You do need to bear in mind that these commentaries were on the text of the Exposure Draft and it was intended that anomalies identified through the Exposure Draft would be corrected in the Bill so, as I have already noted, there will be changes. Nonetheless, these comments should give you a good fell for what was being intended and issues that might be thrown up.

As you will see from the commentaries on the exposure draft, there are a host of issues to be considered. Time doesn’t permit anything but a cursory attempt on a couple of points here:

Item 113 of Sch 6 will replace the current s 41 of the Trade Marks Act (requiring a trade mark to be capable of distinguishing) with a new provision intended to reverse Blount and ensure that there is a presumption that a trade mark is registrable. It does this by requiring the Registrar to be satisfied that the trade mark is not capable of distinguishing before the Registrar can reject the application on this ground.

So clause 41(2) says “A trade mark is taken not to be capable of distinguishing … only if ….”

(Now I look at it, I wonder how long before it will be before someone tries to argue that “taken not to be capable of distinguishing” means something different to (and less than) “is not capable of distinguishing”. Oh well. Surely that one would be dispatched over the fence for six?)

While the Bill does seek to change the standard of proof against patent applications and patent oppositions from the existing “practically certain to fail” or “clear” type standard to the usual “balance of probabilities (see e.g. items 14 and 15 of Sch 1), no such amendment is proposed for trade mark oppositions. Therefore, the current state of uncertainty on this issue will continue (contrast e.g. Hills v Bitek at [43] – [55] to Sports Warehouse v Fry at [26] – [40]) , even though the school of thought favouring the “practically certain” or “clear” standard was imported from the Patents Act.

The bill will also introduce a whole new regime of oppositions to the registration of trade marks.

Item 18 of Sch. 3 will replace s 52 so that there is an obligation to file a Notice of Opposition which the Registrar, not the opponent, will serve on the applicant. Item 19 will introduce a new s 52A. This will require an applicant to file a notice of intention to defend or the application will lapse.

According to the EM, the regulations (when they are promulgated) will include power for the Notice of Opposition to specify the particulars of the grounds of opposition. The EM explains:

Opponents are currently required to state the grounds on which they intend opposing an application when they file their notice of opposition. However, they are not required to set out the particulars of those grounds. Frequently, this means that the opponent sets out all possible grounds, whether or not they have any intention of relying on them. As a result, the trade mark applicant may be faced with a number of grounds to deal with and no indication of which are key to the opposition until late in the opposition proceedings and sometimes not until the hearing

makes it difficult for the applicant to prepare their case. It also increases costs as the applicant is obliged to prepare a case in response to all grounds raised in the statement of grounds, including those on which the opponent may no longer rely.

The amendment addresses this problem by allowing for regulations to be made to require the opponent to file a statement of particulars of the grounds on which they intend to oppose. This will help focus oppositions earlier, reducing costs and unnecessary effort for the applicant.

The EM talks of the regulations conferring a power to require particulars. Whether this will be a discretionary power to be exercised on a case by case basis or an obligation on all opponents will need to await the terms of the regulations themselves. For example, the EM on items 24 and 25 states that opponents will be required to file both statements of grounds and particulars and  the last paragraph of the EM on item 17 states that the particulars will be required to be filed within 1 month of the filing of the Notice of Opposition.

The regulations will also apparently include a power to amend the statement(s) of grounds and particulars. However, the EM on items 24 and 25 states:

The regulations will only permit the opponent to amend the statement of grounds and particulars under tightly controlled circumstances.

The Federal Magistrates Court will get original jurisdiction in matters under the Designs Act and the Trade Marks Act alongside its existing original jurisdiction in copyright and (what used to be called) trade practices matters.