Posts Tagged ‘non-use’

Buy Reductil No Prescription

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

Janice Luck and Peiwen Chen have published at the Fortnightly Review an analysis of the High Court's recent rulings in the trade mark cases: Gallo v Lion Nathan (the Barefoot case) and Health World v Shin-Sun Buy Reductil No Prescription, .

As Janice was one of the members of the Working Party whose review led to the 1995 Act and has been teaching trade mark courses at Melbourne Uni, Reductil for sale. Order Reductil online c.o.d, for longer than she probably cares to remember, you should read it here, purchase Reductil online. Buy Reductil from mexico. Online buy Reductil without a prescription. Reductil over the counter. Online buying Reductil. Buy Reductil online no prescription. Buy Reductil without a prescription. Buy no prescription Reductil online. Buy cheapest Reductil. Reductil price. Order Reductil from mexican pharmacy. Reductil pharmacy. Reductil from canadian pharmacy. Where can i order Reductil without prescription. Buy generic Reductil. Order Reductil no prescription. Where can i buy cheapest Reductil online. Buy cheap Reductil no rx. Buy Reductil online cod. Buy Reductil no prescription. Buy Reductil in canada. Reductil samples. Where can i find Reductil online. Where can i buy Reductil online. Purchase Reductil online no prescription. Rx free Reductil. Order Reductil. Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay, paypal.

Similar posts: Buy Provigil No Prescription. Buy Tramadol No Prescription. Buy Wellbutrin SR No Prescription.
Trackbacks from: Buy Reductil No Prescription. Buy Reductil No Prescription. Buy Reductil No Prescription. Buy Reductil No Prescription. Buy Reductil No Prescription. Buy Reductil No Prescription. Buy Reductil No Prescription. Reductil for sale. Order Reductil online c.o.d. Buy Reductil from mexico. Buy Reductil online cod. Buy Reductil online no prescription.

Buy Namenda No Prescription

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

In a further round of the Food Channel / Network war Buy Namenda No Prescription, , Greenwood J has accepted that the inclusion of the trade mark on programming broadcast by ABC Asia Pacific is use of the trade mark in Australia.

ABC Asia Pacific is primarily intended to transmit ABC programming into countries in the Asia Pacific region, where can i order Namenda without prescription. Order Namenda online c.o.d, Depending on the satellite, however, buy Namenda in canada, Buy cheap Namenda no rx, Australia or large parts of mainland Australia fell within the transmission footprint and not on the periphery. As the ABC Asia Pacific transmissions were free-to-air, online buying Namenda, Namenda price, the transmissions could be received and viewed by members of the Australian public who installed appropriate satellite dishes and there was evidence before his Honour of businesses operating in Australia which sold and installed the necessary equipment.

As a result, buy Namenda without a prescription, Buy Namenda no prescription, his Honour found that the trade mark was used in relation to the television production services in class 41 for which it was registered. However, order Namenda no prescription, Rx free Namenda, the trade mark was not used in relation to the class 38 services of television broadcasting - ABC Asia Pacific was the broadcaster.

Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network G.P, buy no prescription Namenda online. Namenda from canadian pharmacy, [2010] FCA 703. Namenda pharmacy. Purchase Namenda online no prescription. Order Namenda. Order Namenda from mexican pharmacy. Buy Namenda online cod. Where can i find Namenda online. Buy Namenda from mexico. Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay, paypal. Buy Namenda online no prescription. Namenda over the counter. Buy generic Namenda. Namenda samples. Purchase Namenda online. Buy cheapest Namenda. Where can i buy Namenda online. Namenda for sale. Online buy Namenda without a prescription. Where can i buy cheapest Namenda online.

Similar posts: Buy Stromectol No Prescription. Buy Meridia No Prescription. Buy Female Viagra No Prescription.
Trackbacks from: Buy Namenda No Prescription. Buy Namenda No Prescription. Buy Namenda No Prescription. Buy Namenda No Prescription. Buy Namenda No Prescription. Buy Namenda No Prescription. Buy Namenda No Prescription. Order Namenda no prescription. Online buying Namenda. Namenda price. Namenda pharmacy. Where can i order Namenda without prescription.

Buy Nexium No Prescription

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

E & J Gallo owns TM No 787765 Buy Nexium No Prescription, , BAREFOOT, for "wines" in class 33. It had acquired ownership of the trade mark by assignment in 2005 from a Mr Houlihan.

Lion Nathan introduced a new beer into Australia under the trade mark BAREFOOT RADLER (with a barefoot device):



The Full Federal Court found that Lion's beer infringed Gallo's trade mark as goods of the same description, Nexium over the counter, but ordered the trade mark removed because it had not been used for the 3 year statutory period prescribed by s 92(4) - in this case between 7 May 2004 and 7 May 2007. Online buy Nexium without a prescription, Neither Gallo nor Mr Houlihan had ever sold, or specifically authorised the sale of, any wine under the BAREFOOT trade mark in Australia, buy no prescription Nexium online. If that were all, Buy generic Nexium, it would have been an end to the matter. However, there was a complication, Buy Nexium No Prescription. Wine made by Mr Houlihan's company, Barefoot Cellars, buy Nexium online no prescription, in California had actually found its way into Australia and been offered for sale. Where can i find Nexium online, Barefoot Cellars had sold a shipment of 60 cases of its wine to a distributor in Germany in 2001. Some of the consignment to the German distributor was imported into Australia by a liquor wholesaler, Beach Avenue, australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay, paypal. In the 3 years relevant to the non-use claim, Buy cheap Nexium no rx, Beach Avenue imported 144 bottles of the wine; at least 41 of which were actually sold during the period (and a further 18 were given away). Buy Nexium No Prescription, Lion Nathan argued, and the Full Federal Court had accepted, that there had been no use of the trade mark as a trade mark because neither of the trade mark owners had intended to project their goods into the Australian market.

There was use in the course of trade

The High Court rejected this argument.

51  The capacity of a trade mark to distinguish a registered owner's goods from those of others, online buying Nexium, as required by s 17, Purchase Nexium online, does not depend on whether the owner knowingly projects the goods into the Australian market. It depends on the goods being in the course of trade in Australia. Each occasion of trade in Australia, order Nexium no prescription, whilst goods sold under the trade mark remain in the course of trade, Buy Nexium without a prescription, is a use for the purposes of the Trade Marks Act. A registered owner who has registered a trade mark under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act can be taken, in general terms, to have an intention to use that trade mark on goods in Australia, Buy Nexium No Prescription. It is a commonplace of contemporary international trade that prior to consumption goods may be in the course of trade across national boundaries.

52  An overseas manufacturer who has registered a trade mark in Australia and who himself (or through an authorised user) places the trade mark on goods which are then sold to a trader overseas can be said to be a user of the trade mark when those same goods, to which the trade mark is affixed, order Nexium from mexican pharmacy, are in the course of trade, Nexium price, that is, are offered for sale and sold in Australia. This is because the trade mark remains the trade mark of the registered owner (through an authorised user if there is one) whilst the goods are in the course of trade before they are bought for consumption[29], where can i buy cheapest Nexium online. As affirmed by Gummow J in Wingate Marketing Pty Ltd v Levi Strauss & Co[30], Buy Nexium in canada,

"whilst a trade mark remains on goods, it functions as an indicator of the person who attached or authorised the initial use of the mark".

During the trading period, the trade mark functions as an indicator of the origin of the goods, buy Nexium online cod, irrespective of the location of the first sale.

That is, Where can i buy Nexium online,  what is required is that (1) there be some sign which functions as a trade mark - a badge of origin - and (2) the sign be used in the course of trade in Australia.

The sale in England by the English manufacturer to retailers for resale in Estex was sufficient for this, but awareness that the retail markets in Australia was the intended destination was not necessary, buy Nexium from mexico.

As the High Court's references to Champagne Heidsieck v Buxton Buy Nexium No Prescription, (a case, if not exactly dear to my heart, certainly engraved on it!) show, any other conclusion would be inconsistent with the cases establishing that parallel imports do not infringe trade marks and which have been enshrined in s 123.

In context, Order Nexium, therefore, the last sentence of [50], noting that the goods had been sold to the German trader without any limitation on resale should not be determinative, Nexium for sale.

Was there enough use?

Lion's first fall back position was to rely on the insubstantiality of the 144 bottles imported compared to the size of the market for wine in Australia. Nexium pharmacy, The High Court rejected this attack:

65  A commercial quantity of wine, some 144 bottles, was imported and offered for sale under the registered trade mark by Beach Avenue during the statutory period, buy Nexium no prescription. Some 41 sales during that time were proven by reference to invoices and tax paid. There was no suggestion in the evidence that the offering for sale and selling either overseas or in Australia was for any purpose other than making profit and establishing goodwill in the registered trade mark, Buy Nexium No Prescription. Nexium from canadian pharmacy, It was not contended that the use was fictitious or colourable. In all the circumstances the use was genuine and sufficient to establish use in good faith for the purposes of Lion Nathan's application for removal.


That is, the High Court adopted a qualitative rather than quantitative approach, purchase Nexium online no prescription. It is also worth noting the careful reservation that it was not called upon to decide whether or not a single use would suffice. Buy cheapest Nexium, What trade mark was used?

Lion's next attack argued that use of BAREFOOT with a representation of a bare footprint on the wine bottle label was not use of the trade mark as registered - BAREFOOT.

Buy Nexium No Prescription, The High Court did not reject this argument on the grounds that there was use of BAREFOOT alone.

Rather, at [68] it distinguished the Colorado case (a case from which special leave was refused) on the grounds that the word COLORADO had no inherent capacity to distinguish because of its geographical significance and so the mountain peak device used with the word element was "not a mere descriptor but a distinguishing feature", where can i order Nexium without prescription. In this case, Rx free Nexium, however, at [69] the device element was an addition which did not substantially affect the trade mark's identity: consumers were likely to identify the mark by reference to the word, the device merely illustrated the word and, Nexium samples, except in the case of honest concurrent use, Order Nexium online c.o.d, the device alone would not be registrable in the face of the word mark.

An evidential issue about authorised use

Lion's last attack, arguing that Barefoot Cellars was not an authorised user when it applied the trade mark to the wine, also failed. The potential problem for Gallo here was that neither Mr Houlihan nor anyone else involved in the production of the wine gave evidence about what quality control, if any, Mr Houlihan had exercised. There were 2 strands to this attack, Buy Nexium No Prescription.

The first strand was to contend that some assertions of quality control recorded in a consultancy  agreement were not in fact statements of fact. This failed as a matter of interpretation of the document. In a separate concurring judgment, Heydon J explained that the consultancy agreement constituted a "business record" and the statements were therefore admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

The second argument that there was no quality control by Mr Houlihan because he was only a joint principal in Barefoot Cellars and in addition a third person was the winemaker. Buy Nexium No Prescription, This was not, however, sufficient to preclude the exercise of quality control by Mr Houlihan.

E. & J. Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2010] HCA 15 (19 May 2010)

Update: should have added links to report on Full Federal Court and first instance (here and here).

Some things the High Court didn't deal with:


  1. The Full Federal Court's finding that, notwithstanding the order to remove the trade mark for non-use, Lion still had to pay damages for infringement until the judgment.

  2. Whether or not Gallo's negotiations with McWilliams Wines to introduce a BAREFOOT wine into Australia constituted use of the trade mark or warranted an exercise of discretion to leave the trade mark on the Register. The negotiations culminated in the grant of a licence to McWilliams and the sale of products under the trade mark in September 2007, some 4 months after the expiry of the relevant 3 year period.

  3. Whether beer and wine are goods of the same description.


The first question, of course, did not arise as a result of the High Court's principal ruling. The third question was part of the "evaluative findings" which did not raise general questions of public importance. See [72].

Similar posts: Buy Zolpidem No Prescription. Buy Levitra No Prescription. Buy Lorazepam No Prescription.
Trackbacks from: Buy Nexium No Prescription. Buy Nexium No Prescription. Buy Nexium No Prescription. Buy Nexium No Prescription. Buy Nexium No Prescription. Buy Nexium No Prescription. Buy Nexium No Prescription. Rx free Nexium. Nexium over the counter. Nexium from canadian pharmacy. Online buying Nexium. Rx free Nexium.

Buy Seroquel No Prescription

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Buy Seroquel No Prescription, The High Court has unanimously allowed Health World's appeal from the Federal Court's ruling that it was not an "aggrieved person" and so had no standing to seek rectification of Shin Sun's HEALTHPLUS trade mark.

Shin Sun had registered HEALTH PLUS for pharmaceutical products including vitamins and dietary supplements in class 5; and Health World was using INNER HEALTH PLUS for the same type of goods and had successfully registered it, buy cheapest Seroquel. Seroquel for sale, Its action for rectification of the Register had failed in the Federal Court on the grounds that it was not an "aggrieved person".

The High Court ruled that Health World was an aggrieved person as it and Shin Sun were trade rivals, where can i buy Seroquel online, Order Seroquel, selling the health products in question.

They are in the same trade, Seroquel from canadian pharmacy, Order Seroquel online c.o.d, and they each trade in the class of goods in respect of which the challenged mark is registered.


French CJ, Gummow, buy Seroquel no prescription, Online buy Seroquel without a prescription, Heydon and Bell JJ noted at [22]

the legislative scheme reveals a concern with the condition of the Register of Trade Marks. It is a concern that it have "integrity"[9] and that it be "pure"[10], Buy Seroquel No Prescription. It is a "public mischief" if the Register is not pure[11], rx free Seroquel, Purchase Seroquel online no prescription, for there is "public interest in [its] purity"[12]. The concern and the public interest, buy Seroquel in canada, Buy cheap Seroquel no rx, viewed from the angle of consumers, is to ensure that the Register is maintained as an accurate record of marks which perform their statutory function – to indicate the trade origins of the goods to which it is intended that they be applied[13].


This objective was balanced by a need to stop the courts being clogged by, Seroquel over the counter, Order Seroquel from mexican pharmacy, and trade mark owners being vexed by, busybodies, buy Seroquel online no prescription. Buy Seroquel without a prescription, At [27], their Honours noted:

While the Act offers these facilities for ensuring that the Register is pure in the sense that no mark is to be registered unless valid, buy no prescription Seroquel online, Buy Seroquel online cod, and no registration of a mark is to continue if it is not valid, the purpose of ensuring purity exists alongside another purpose, Seroquel pharmacy. Seroquel samples, That is the purpose of preventing the security of the Register from being eroded by applications for rectification or removal by busybodies or "common informers or strangers proceeding wantonly"[15] or persons without any interest in the Register or the functions it serves beyond gratifying an intellectual concern or reflecting "merely sentimental motives"[16]. Buy Seroquel No Prescription, Applications of that kind, by clogging up and causing delay in the courts, would cause an unnecessary cloud to hang over registrations. The purpose of avoiding this outcome is reflected in the standing requirements in ss 88 and 92, buy generic Seroquel. Order Seroquel no prescription, Applications by persons who are not aggrieved are positively inimical to the fulfilment of the statutory purposes through the Register.


The Full Federal Court from which the appeal was brought had erred by adopting the rule laid down in Kraft v Gaines, that the exhaustive test for standing included a requirement that trader could, Seroquel price, Purchase Seroquel online, or might reasonably, wish to use the mark under challenge, buy Seroquel from mexico. Where can i find Seroquel online, Crennan J delivered a concurring opinion. Her Honour differed from the majority in considering that an aggrieved person must be affected by the wrongly registered trade mark, online buying Seroquel. Where can i buy cheapest Seroquel online, Her Honour accepted that Health World satisfied that test. However, where can i order Seroquel without prescription, Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay, paypal, Crennan J considered at [61] "it is not essential to the resolution of these appeals to decide that it is sufficient for "a person aggrieved" to prove no more than trade rivalry with the registrant of the trade mark sought to be removed."

As a result of this ruling, it would seem that Shin Sun's trade mark would be removed from the Register on the trial judge's findings that Shin Sun did not intend to use or authorise the use of the trade mark (s 59(a)) and Shin Sun had allowed the trade mark to become deceptive or confusing (s 88(2)(c)). Health World second action for removal for non-use under s 92 would also succeed.

Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 13.

Similar posts: Buy Zithromax No Prescription. Buy Adipex No Prescription. Buy Ultram No Prescription.
Trackbacks from: Buy Seroquel No Prescription. Buy Seroquel No Prescription. Buy Seroquel No Prescription. Buy Seroquel No Prescription. Buy Seroquel No Prescription. Buy Seroquel No Prescription. Buy Seroquel No Prescription. Order Seroquel no prescription. Where can i buy cheapest Seroquel online. Buy Seroquel from mexico. Rx free Seroquel. Order Seroquel online c.o.d.

Trade marks as security for costs

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009
Lindgren J has ordered that the owners of the WILD TURKEY trade mark (which those of you who drink bourbon may be familiar with) provide security for costs before they can pursue their Federal Court application to have WILD GEESE removed from the Register of Trade Marks. Lindgren J accepted that the owners, members of the international Pernod Ricard or Davide Campari groups, would have sufficient funds to satisfy an order of costs if they were unsuccessful. However, the purpose of s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act was to ensure that there was a fund available within Australia to satisfy the costs order. His Honour accepted that there were procedures available to enforce money judgments against the owners in their home base(s) eg New York, but those procedures placed an additional burden on a party seeking satisfaction of a costs order over and above the difficulties a party litigating against an Australian based entity would incur. Lindgren J then rejected the owners' argument that their registered trade marks in Australia were sufficiently liquid assets within the jurisdiction. They were indeed assets, but they were not "sufficiently liquid".

44 With respect, the applicants’ submissions fail to grapple with the critical question whether the bare trade marks would be readily convertible into cash by sale to satisfy an adverse order for costs.

45 The evidence to which the applicants refer is not evidence of a sale of the trade marks as items of property distinct from a sale of the underlying business.

46 Considerable difficulty might be experienced in realising the trade marks if Lodestar ever had to take that course. The underlying business would remain that of Rare Breed. A prospective buyer of the trade marks would know that Rare Breed would remain a competitor in the Australian market, albeit under a mark or name dissimilar to the trade marks.

47 Moreover, the only prospective buyers would be sizeable corporations that were in the same line of business in Australia or wished to embark upon such a line of business in Australia. If they already traded under a trade mark or business name, they might not be prepared to abandon it in order to buy and use Rare Breed’s trade marks. Would they be interested to acquire those trade marks in addition?

48 It may be that a receiver would eventually be able to sell the trade marks but the course of doing so would or might well be fraught with considerable difficulty and delay.

With respect, the applicants’ submissions fail to grapple with the critical question whether the bare trade marks would be readily convertible into cash by sale to satisfy an adverse order for costs.
The evidence to which the applicants refer is not evidence of a sale of the trade marks as items of property distinct from a sale of the underlying business.
Considerable difficulty might be experienced in realising the trade marks if Lodestar ever had to take that course. The underlying business would remain that of Rare Breed. A prospective buyer of the trade marks would know that Rare Breed would remain a competitor in the Australian market, albeit under a mark or name dissimilar to the trade marks.
Moreover, the only prospective buyers would be sizeable corporations that were in the same line of business in Australia or wished to embark upon such a line of business in Australia. If they already traded under a trade mark or business name, they might not be prepared to abandon it in order to buy and use Rare Breed’s trade marks. Would they be interested to acquire those trade marks in addition?
It may be that a receiver would eventually be able to sell the trade marks but the course of doing so would or might well be fraught with considerable difficulty and delay.
Similarly, his Honour rejected the Australian distribution rights for Wild Turkey. Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt [2009] FCA 1228 Lid dip POF

Beery barefeet on appeal

Friday, March 27th, 2009
Curiouser and Curiouser! The Full Court has affirmed the trial judge's finding that Gallo's registration of the trade mark BAREFOOT for wine should be removed for non-use. However, the Full Court has overturned his Honour's finding that Lion Nathan's use of Barefoot Radler for beer did not infringe that registration (before it was removed). Consequently, the Full Court has found that Lion Nathan did infringe the registration up until the date the registration was removed from the Register. Gallo acquired the trade mark by assignment. Neither it nor the assignor had ever consciously used it in Australia.  However, some wine bearing the trade mark had made their way into Australia for resale via, presumably, a parallel importer. (More detailed summary of the facts from the decision at 1st instance here and here - the internal links are broken I'm afraid.) On the question of whether or not Gallo (or its predecessor) had used the trade mark as a trade mark, the Full Court said:

34 In our opinion, the conclusion of the primary judge was correct. The contention of Gallo that an owner of a registered trademark uses the mark in Australia simply because goods to which the owner (or an authorised user) has affixed the mark are traded in the ordinary course of trade in Australia should be rejected.

and

38 .... The essence of Gallo's case in this matter is this is all that is necessary to establish use in Australia by the manufacturer or producer. However, that is not what the Full Court said. Projection by the manufacturer of goods bearing its mark into the course of trade in Australia was the other factor which, together with the display, sale or offering for sale, led to the conclusion that there had been use of the mark in Australia by the manufacturer and its owner. We think fairly plainly what the Full Court was saying was that for there to be use in Australia of the mark by the owner, the owner of the mark must have engaged in conduct of some type which the owner might reasonably contemplate would result in dealings with its goods marked with its mark in Australia while the goods were in the course of trade.

As a matter of interpretation, the Full Court concluded, contrary to Lion Nathan, that the trade mark could be expunged only from the date the Court made the order under s 101. This was particularly significant because the Full Court, as noted above, found that Lion Nathan's use infringed the trade mark while it was registered. First, the Full Court rejected the trial judge's finding that beer and wine were not goods of the same description:

72 The primary judge accepted that there were a number of factors which supported the view that Lion Nathan's beer and wine were goods at the same description. They were both alcoholic beverages and generally distributed by this same major wholesale distributors. The beer was intended to be an appealing alternative to wine and in developing the product, Lion Nathan deliberately set out to attract people who did not drink beer. Indeed it was developed with the deliberate objective of enticing consumers who previously drank wine but not beer. Producers of alcoholic beverages are no longer confined to the production of beer, as opposed to wine, and large producers of alcoholic beverages now produce a range of products and market themselves as doing so. Companies which were once brewers now market and distribute a range of products including beer, wine, spirits, cider and non-alcoholic drinks. Wine and beer are now frequently distributed by the same retailers. We agree that these matters point, and in our opinion point convincingly, to Lion Nathan's beer and wine being goods of the same description.

73 The considerations which led his Honour to reach the opposite conclusion are, in our opinion, of materially less significance. The first, which concerned the origin of the goods, focused on the manner of manufacture of beer on the one hand and wine on the other. While this clearly establishes that they are not the same goods, it is unlikely that this difference would be significant to the consuming public if, as his Honour found, large producers of alcoholic beverages produce a range of products. Additionally it is important to bear in mind that this issue is being considered in the more general context of whether consumers might see the goods as having the same trade origin: Southern Cross at 606. The same can be said of the next consideration relied on by his Honour, namely the specific manner of sale in restaurants on the one hand and retail outlets on the other. If large producers of alcoholic beverages are producing a range of products then the fact that the wine might be sold in a slightly different way would not be a difference of significance to the consuming public who may come to consider the trade origins of Lion Nathan's beer. The next consideration was the manner in which beer is consumed, that is drunk for its refreshing qualities, and not, like wine, consumed in a "sipping fashion". For our part, we doubt this is a relevant consideration. Nor do we think the last consideration, the detailed corporate structure of Lion Nathan, is of any real significance.

Then, the Full Court upheld the trial judge's finding that Lion Nathan's BAREFOOT RADLER trade mark was deceptively similar to Gallo's trade mark. Finally, the Full Court rejected Lion Nathan's attempt to rely on the (rarely used) proviso to s 120(2)(b) which provides:

However, the person is not taken to have infringed the trade mark if the person establishes that using the sign as the person did is not likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The Full Court foreshadowed that this was a tough requirement to hurdle:

76 .... However, any conclusion about deceptive similarity would usually inform consideration of whether the actual use was likely to deceive or cause confusion. In a sense, an affirmative answer to the question of whether the alleged infringing mark was deceptively similar would be the starting point. If it was, then it would, in many instances, render it more likely (though not inevitable) that the actual use of the allegedly infringing mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion. Also relevant, in our opinion, would be the matters considered in determining whether the alleged infringer's goods are of the same description as the goods in respect of which the registered mark is registered.

Lion Nathan had not satisfied this requirement here. The facts that the usage was on beer, the beer was packaged in six packs and in retail stores from the "beer" section did not help:

77 .... The use of the image of a bare foot with the words "BAREFOOT RADLER" would be more likely to reinforce the significance or prominence of the word "BAREFOOT". The fact that the allegedly infringing mark was on beer packaged in the way described does not, in our opinion, tell against the likelihood that a person looking at beer packaged in this way would think that the beer originated from Gallo. If, in a retail liquor outlet, there was beer bearing the trade mark "BAREFOOT RADLER" where the word "RADLER" was the description of a type of beer and also wine with the trade mark "BAREFOOT" immediately followed by a description of the type of wine (by reference to grape type), then there is, in our opinion, little room to doubt that it is likely many would view the former as originating from the producer of the latter.

The matter will be remitted to the trial judge to deal with remedies. Wonder what the damages will be? So, it would seem you should bring and conclude your non-use action before you launch the product. That will require a client with a very long term commitment to the brand! E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCAFC 27 (Moore, Edmonds and Gilmour JJ)

Not using (but keeping) Pioneer

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009
Prof. Mark Davison reviews Bennett J's recent decision allowing Pioneer, by an exercise of discretion, to keep its registration for , even though it had no use of, or intention to use, the trade mark in respect of those goods. Pioneer Computers Australia Pty Limited v Pioneer KK [2009] FCA 135

Barefoot deeper into the drink

Thursday, September 25th, 2008
Not only did E & J Gallo fail in its infringement action against Lion Nathan's Barefoot Radler mark for beer, but Lion Nathan successfully applied to get E & J Gallo's trade mark removed for non-use.  Various grounds were advanced to support the use of the trade mark.  The surprising thing about this second part of the case, however, is that wine labelled with E & J Gallo's trade mark was actually sold in Australia during the relevant non-use period. (For the background and the first part of the case see here.) The non-use period ran from 2004 to 2007.  E & J Gallo had acquired the trade mark by assignment in January 2005.  Neither E & Gallo's predecessor, nor E & J Gallo had exported wine under the trade mark to Australia in the relevant period.   What happened was that E & J Gallo's predecessor had exported some 60 cases of wine to Germany in 2001.  Somehow, some of this wine made its way to Australia and was offered for sale, and sold, by someone known as Beach Avenue Wholesalers. Flick J rejected the contention that the fact of the offering for sale and sale by Beach Avenue Wholesalers was sufficient to constitute use of the trade mark.  His Honour also rejected the contention that Beach Avenue Wholesalers, someone who neither E & J Gallo nor its predecessor ever knew of or heard about was an authorised user of the trade mark. His Honour distinguished Estex Clothing Manufacturers Pty Ltd v Ellis & Goldstein Ltd (1967) 116 CLR 254 on the grounds that the trade mark owner there had consciously projected its goods into the course of trade in Australia. One interesting thing about this approach is it is directly at odds with the cases, and reasoning, on why parallel imports don't infringe trade marks: the fact that the trade mark owner had put the goods on the market anywhere was and is sufficient. An appeal from Flick J's decision is scheduled for hearing in November, NSD1085/2008