use as a trade mark

A case of (un) parallel imports

1 Comment / Trade marks / / / , , , , ,

BTB holds a licence to make and sell “Greg Norman” branded clothing in India from Greg Norman Collection Inc (GNC). GNC is the “head licensor” of the “Greg Norman” trade marks registered in, amongst other places, India and Australia.

By clause 2.4 of the licence agreement, BTB agreed not to sell the branded clothing it made outside India without GNC’s consent:

LICENSEE acknowledges that this License is limited to the TERRITORY defined herein, and agrees not to sell LICENSED PRODUCTS to anyone other than its regular retail customers in the TERRITORY in the normal course of trading, and further agrees that it will not sell LICENSED PRODUCTS destined directly or indirectly for sale outside the TERRITORY without the prior written approval of GNC.

Sunsport operates mainly in Pakistan, but also has a representative in Singapore, Mr Wadhwani. Mr Wadhwani also operates a business, PT International which, amongst other things, supplies product to the second respondent in Australia.

Sunsport told Mr Wadhwani that it could source genuine Greg Norman branded merchandise from BTB. Mr Wadhwani told the principal of the second respondent, Mr Dwyer, this. Mr Dwyer checked out GNC’s website and established that BTB was an authorised licensee of GNC and placed an order with Mr Wadhwani from BTB’s catalogue.

Sunsport placed an order with BTB for a shipment of clothing, apparently to be delivered to Pakistan via Singapore. When the shipment reached Singapore, however, PT International on sold the goods to Mr Dwyer’s company, which imported them into Australia.

Nicholas J has found that in doing so Mr Dwyer’s company infringed the “Greg Norman” trade marks.

One particularly interesting issue is why Mr Dwyer’s company was unable to rely on s 123 of the Trade Marks Act 1995: while BTB was in fact a licensee of the relevant trade marks, Nicholas J still found that the trade marks had not been applied to the particular goods with the trade mark owner’s consent. The main reason for this conclusion was that BTB’s licence was limited to India. Although BTB made and marked the goods in India where it did have a licence, it had no licence to sell “Greg Norman” merchandise outside India. At [78] his Honour said:

Where a registered owner consents to another person applying the registered mark to goods on condition that the goods must not to be supplied outside a designated territory, the registered owner would not usually be regarded as having consented to the application of the mark to goods which the other person knows at the time he or she applies the mark are to be supplied by him or her outside the territory.

However, there may be more to it than that. It would appear that BTB made a special batch of the merchandise to fill the order from Sunsport. Also, the evidence showed that BTB did not include the sale in its royalty reports to GNC. While strictly obiter, his Honour went on to note at [89]:

I would not be prepared to infer that products manufactured by BTB in respect of which GNC had received royalty payments were products to which the second applicant’s marks had been applied without the second applicant’s consent in the absence of convincing evidence to that effect. Of course, as I have previously found, royalties were not paid on the products shipped to Sunsports. ….

and went on to reject an argument that the goods imported were of an inferior quality.

If nothing else, this decision shows just how high the hurdle may be for someone who want to engage in parallel importing. On the other hand, if the receipt of royalties has the significance identified at [89], trade mark owners will need to scrutinise statements from their licensees very carefully to ensure that they are not “implicitly” licensing a parallel importer. The implicit licence, or licence by acquiescence, however,  might seem very hard in cases where royalty reports don’t come in for several months (or longer) unless, perhaps, there be a pattern of acquiescing.

A second interesting point lies in his Honour’s comments on the Champagne Hiedsieck case. In that case, Clauson J had held that there is no use of a trade mark as a trade mark by someone when the goods in question are goods to which the trade mark owner had actually applied the mark. That ruling has been upheld and applied many times.

I had thought the High Court’s references to Champagne Hiedsieck in its Gallo ruling showed its continuing relevance.

Nicholas J points out, however, that the High Court stated that s 123 embodies the principle in Champagne Hiedsieck. As a consequence, applying conventional principles of statutory interpretation, his Honour concluded that the enactment of s 123 has operated as a kind of statutory repeal or displacement of Champagne Hiedsieck. His Honour explained:

[98] The question whether a person who sells goods to which a trade mark has been applied with the consent of the owner of the mark uses the mark as a trade mark was recently left open by the High Court: E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 15; (2010) 265 ALR 645 at [53].

[99] The respondents’ argument before me was that, independently of the question of trade mark use by them (which was, as I have said, conceded by them to have occurred), the applicants were also required to establish that the respondents had engaged in “infringing use” and, for that purpose, had to establish that the marks on the relevant goods had not been applied by or with the licence of their owner. I do not think this is correct. There is no justification for implying any such additional requirement. If the circumstances referred to in s 123 are shown to exist then the respondents will not have infringed the registered trade marks, not because of any additional requirement of the kind now postulated but by operation of s 123 itself. The High Court observed in E & J Gallo Winery at [34] that s 123 reflects the principle established by Champagne Heidsieck.
[100] As a matter of statutory construction, s 123 of the Act, in form and substance, creates an exception to infringement which, in accordance with the relevant principles of statutory construction, leads to the conclusion that it is the person who invokes the section who carries the onus of proof: Avel Pty Ltd v Multicoin Amusements Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 58; (1990) 171 CLR 88 at 119; Vines v Djordjevitch [1955] HCA 19; (1955) 91 CLR 512 at 519.

(Nicholas J did go on to note how lightly the burden on a respondent might shift.)

Arguably, the point was not strictly before his Honour as Mr Dwyer’s company conceded it was using the Greg Norman trade marks “as trade marks”. If right, however, there would appear to have been a significant narrowing of defendants’ “wriggle room”.

Sporte Leisure Pty Ltd v Paul’s International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] FCA 1162

A case of (un) parallel imports Read More »

Appeal sinks luscious LIPS

Leave a Comment / Trade marks / / / , , , , , ,

One month after the appeal was heard, the Full Court has rejected Nature’s Blend’s appeal that Nestlé used Luscious Lips as a trade mark.

Nature’s Blend argued first that the trial judge had wrongly focused on the character of Nestlé’s use instead of the proper meaning of the Nature’s Blend mark. As the mark was registered for all confectionery, not just “lips”, it was said to be inherently distinctive. The Full Court, however, rejected this requirement and re-affirmed that the test was to examine whether or not the way Nestlé used the mark (the “impugned use”) would be understood by ordinary consumers as functioning as a badge of origin.

Nestlé’s Luscious Lips are part of its ‘Retro Party Mix’ pack. The expression ‘luscious Lips’ appeared only on the back of the packaging in the expression:

That’s right! All your old favourites are back, so put on those flares & get ready to party! Up to 7 lolly varieties including … cool COLA Bottles, those radical Racing Cars, yummy Honey flavoured Bears, totally freeeekie Teeth, luscious Lips, partying Pineapples and outrageous Raspberries.

You can see the front of the packaging at the product’s very own facebook page.

Nature’s Blend contended that the trial judge had improperly diluted the significance of the ‘luscious Lips’ expression on the Nestlé packaging by reference to the presence of other, more prominent brands.

This issue can be tricky because the Courts have long held that one does not take into account extraneous matters such as disclaimers or the presence of other trade marks when considering the question of deceptive similarity. On the question of use as a trade mark, it is permissible.

While the Full Court acknowledged that the fact that other trade marks were used more prominently on the packaging did not preclude ‘luscious Lips’ from being used as a trade mark, the characterisation of the impugned use depended on the particular usage in question in its own particular setting. In this case, the presence of ALLEN’s and Retro Party Mix did in fact undercut the likelihood that consumers would read ‘luscious Lips’ as a trade mark.

The Full Court also agreed that Nestlé had used the trade mark in good faith as a description.

Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestlé Australia Ltd [2010] FCAFC 117 (Stone, Gordon and Mckerracher JJ)

Comment on decision at first instance.

Appeal sinks luscious LIPS Read More »

Kit Kat shape trade mark

Leave a Comment / Trade marks / / / , , , , , ,

Nestlé has successfully appealed Aldi’s opposition to registration of a 4 bar Kit Kat as a trade mark:

Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) [2010] FCA 218

The trade mark is TM No. 822780 for this:

The endorsement reads:

The trade mark consists of the shape of the goods, being four bars attached to one another by a thin base as depicted in the representations attached to the application form.* * Accepted under the provisions of subsection 41(6).*

Now, the appeal was resolved by consent. There is an interesting practice point there Nicholas J, an experienced IP practitioner before going to the Bench, explains the rationale for allowing appeals on this basis.

The larger questions are of course how did Nestlé get it accepted and what can they do with it?

The endorsement indicates that the sign was accepted on the basis of acquired distinctiveness under s 41(6). It would appear from the Opposition decision, there was (as you would expect) enormous sales and advertising and a survey indicating 77% of the public would identify the shape as Kit Kat.

Consistently with the approach taken by the Full Court in BP Green (cf [118] and [121-122]), the Hearing Officer upheld the opposition on the ground that the shape was not used as a trade mark. Decision here (pdf –  I couldn’t find it on Austlii).

Of course, we don’t know what evidence, if any, Nestlé filed in support of its appeal, which might have persuaded Aldi to withdraw.

Next, what happens if Aldi or Coles or Woolworths start selling a chocolate with 4 bars like the shape above wrapped in their own packaging? At the Opposition hearing, Nestlé argued that post sale use, such as unwrapping the chocolate after sale, could constitute use as a trade mark citing Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Nuplayer Ltd [2005] EWCH 1522 (Ch D) in support. Given his conclusions on other points, it was sufficient for the Hearing Officer to assume this was the case. How it sits with Re Yanx’ TM might be another matter.

What happens to those people who are selling 1 finger or 2 bar variations on a theme? Shades of Adidas’ 3 stripe wars.

Kit Kat shape trade mark Read More »

Luscious Lips confectionary

1 Comment / Trade marks / / / , , , , , , , , , ,

Sundberg J has dismissed Nature’s Blend’s action against Nestlé for infringement of its LUSCIOUS LIPS trade mark, passing off and misleading or deceptive conduct by selling Allens RETRO PARTY MIX.

Nature’s Blend, which was principally a supplier of veterinary products registered LUSCIOUS LIPS in respect of confectionery. Initially, at least, it gave chocolates away branded with the trade mark and a device to promote its business.

Around the same time as Nature’s Blend began marketing products with its trade mark, Nestlé introduced a new product under its ALLENS brand called ‘RETRO PARTY MIX’. This was a box or packet of mixed lollies. The back of the packaging included the following:

That’s right! All your favourites are back, so put on those flares and get ready to party! Up to 7 lolly varieties including…cool Cola Bottles, those radical Racing Cars, yummy Honey flavoured Bears, totally freeeekie Teeth, luscious Lips, partying Pineapples and outrageous Raspberries. [emphasis added]

The “luscious” Lips were a jelly product in the shape of lips.

Sundberg J found that the words used in this setting were not used as a trade mark. First, because the word “luscious” was descriptive and in context consumers would be likely to regard the expression as laudatory and possibly even humorous. Secondly, the effect of the combined expression in context was diluted by the prominence of the Allens, RETRO PARTY MIX and Nestlé trade marks.

Sundberg J would also have found, if necessary, that Nestlé was using the term as a good faith description: Nestlé’s product manager explained the development of the name in terms which made it clear she had been unaware of Nature’s Blend’s trade mark or product.

Interestingly, at [13] Sundberg J also considered it clear that the relevant time for determining liability under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) is the date when the respondent’s conduct started; the same as for trade mark infringement and passing off. Middleton J did not consider it necessary to decide the point in Playcorp v Bodum [2010] FCA 23 at [58]-[59].

Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd  v Nestle Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 198

Luscious Lips confectionary Read More »

Maltesers v Delfi malt balls

Leave a Comment / Trade marks / / / , , , , , , , ,

Mars’ appeal against the rejection of its claims of trade mark infringement and misleading or deceptive conduct have been tersely rejected.

Images of the product Mars complained about here.

The Full Court noted:

9     It is not in dispute that the evidence established that:
•    confectionary is commonly packaged in primary colours and that red, in various shades, is a predominant and common, indeed ubiquitous, colour;
•    confectionary packaging commonly displays a picture or representation of the product, frequently showing a cross-section or “cut through” of the product;
•    it is not unusual for the name of the product to be written on a diagonal, from bottom left to top right;
•    it is common for packaging of confectionary to include all of the above features.

In this context, the Full Court found that the words malt balls were descriptive and the colour red used by the respondent was not distinctive.

Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 174

Maltesers v Delfi malt balls Read More »

What’s use of a trade mark in Australia

Leave a Comment / Trade marks / / / , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bausch & Lomb were distributing an ophthalmic irrigating solution in Australia in bottles like this:

2009_129900.png

The bottles themselves were packaged in cardboard boxes which did not have “BSS” on them and the products were distributed to hospitals and the like.

Alcon, however, has BSS registered as a trade mark in class 5 for such products.

One point of interest is that Bausch & Lomb sought to show that BSS had become descriptive in the trade by relying on a range of publications which included expressions such as “balanced salt solution (BSS Alcon)”, with subsequent references being just to BSS.

Most of the publications were dismissed as inadmissible, being foreign publications not shown to be directed at Australia or referred to by Australians. On the other hand, those in Australia that were admitted:

98 A fair reading of those journal articles suggests that, when used in those articles, the letters “BSS” were almost always being used by the authors as an editorial abbreviation for “balanced salt solution”. This does not prove lack of distinctiveness. The letters “BSS” never appear on their own in those journal articles without a prior reference to “balanced salt solution”. The contents of the journal articles are, at best, neutral on the question of whether the letters “BSS” were used descriptively by December 2006. If anything, they tend to suggest that those letters were not used in that way at that time. This is because, in every case, it was necessary to refer to the product by its full name (“balanced salt solution”) before the acronym “bss” could sensibly be deployed. The one example of use of the letters “BSS” in government Request for Tender documents is in the same category.

The evidence further showed that until Bausch & Lomb came along, all Alcon’s other competitors used “balanced salt solution” but not BSS. Bausch & Lomb’s conduct, the subject of the proceeding, was the sole exception.

A second, more general, issue is whether or not Bausch & Lomb is using BSS as a trade mark. Foster J found it was. Over at the Australian Trade Marks blog, Professor Davison accepts that there was considerable grounds to find that it was use as a trade mark. However, he contends that one of the factors, (h), relied on by the judge goes to far:

(h) The letters “BSS” have brand significance in the relevant trade in Australia. They are known to be the applicant’s trade mark. The applicant has a reputation in the product identified by reference to the mark (Alcon BSS).

I am not sure that the criticism is well made.

For example, in the Caplets case, Gummow J explained the test for determining use of a trade mark as follows:

When the issue is one of infringement, a pivotal question is whether the use complained of is use by the alleged infringer as a trade mark. The answer to that question requires an understanding of the “purpose and nature” of the impugned use: Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407 at 426(the Shell case) per Kitto J. As his Honour there points out, with reference to Edward Young & Co Ltd v Grierson Oldham & Co Ltd (1924) 41 RPC 548, and as s 66 of the present Act also indicates, the nature of the allegedly infringing use may be considered in the light of a usage common in the relevant trade. The relevant context, where the mark is a word mark, includes a consideration of the way in which the word has been displayed in relation to the goods and advertisements of which complaint is made: Mars GB Ltd v Cadbury Ltd [1987] RPC 387 at 402, per Whitford J.
Where the trade mark allegedly used by the defendant comprises ordinary English words (such as “Page Three”, considered by Slade J in News Group Newspapers Ltd v Rocket Record Co Ltd [1981] FSR 89 at 102) then, as this decision illustrates, that circumstance may be taken into account by the court in the process of reasoning by which it accepts or rejects a submission that the use in question is not a trade mark use but a description of the goods in question. To say that is not to gainsay the point made by Dixon CJ in Mark Foy’s Ltd v Davies Coop and Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 190 at 194–5 (the Tub Happy case), that language is not always used to convey a single, clear idea; a mark may have a descriptive element but still serve as a badge of trade origin. However, where the issue is one of infringing use by use of a word mark (as in the present case), the fundamental question remains, to paraphrase what was said by Williams J in the same case (at 205), whether those to whom the user is directed are being invited to purchase the goods (or services) of the defendants which are to be distinguished from the goods of other traders “ partly because “ (emphasis supplied) they are described by the words in question.

When the issue is one of infringement, a pivotal question is whether the use complained of is use by the alleged infringer as a trade mark. The answer to that question requires an understanding of the “purpose and nature” of the impugned use: Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407 at 426(the Shell case) per Kitto J. As his Honour there points out, with reference to Edward Young & Co Ltd v Grierson Oldham & Co Ltd (1924) 41 RPC 548, and as s 66 of the present Act also indicates, the nature of the allegedly infringing use may be considered in the light of a usage common in the relevant trade. The relevant context, where the mark is a word mark, includes a consideration of the way in which the word has been displayed in relation to the goods and advertisements of which complaint is made: Mars GB Ltd v Cadbury Ltd [1987] RPC 387 at 402, per Whitford J.

Where the trade mark allegedly used by the defendant comprises ordinary English words (such as “Page Three”, considered by Slade J in News Group Newspapers Ltd v Rocket Record Co Ltd [1981] FSR 89 at 102) then, as this decision illustrates, that circumstance may be taken into account by the court in the process of reasoning by which it accepts or rejects a submission that the use in question is not a trade mark use but a description of the goods in question. To say that is not to gainsay the point made by Dixon CJ in Mark Foy’s Ltd v Davies Coop and Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 190 at 194–5 (the Tub Happy case), that language is not always used to convey a single, clear idea; a mark may have a descriptive element but still serve as a badge of trade origin. However, where the issue is one of infringing use by use of a word mark (as in the present case), the fundamental question remains, to paraphrase what was said by Williams J in the same case (at 205), whether those to whom the user is directed are being invited to purchase the goods (or services) of the defendants which are to be distinguished from the goods of other traders “ partly because “ (emphasis supplied) they are described by the words in question. (my emphasis)

Now, that doesn’t say that you can take into account consumers’ knowledge that the term is a trade mark. However, if you can take into account their knowledge that something, such as the ox cart in Edward Young v Grierson Oldham, is commonly used descriptively, wouldn’t their knowledge that something was a trade mark be relevant also? The fact that ‘Alligator’ was a fancy word used only by the plaintiff was a vital consideration in JB Stone & Co Ltd v Steelace Manufacturing Co Ltd (1929) 46 RPC 406, a case which Kitto J did read narrowly.

Alcon Inc v Bausch & Lomb (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1299

What’s use of a trade mark in Australia Read More »

Scroll to Top