website links

7NOW and the Shell Oil Drop Man

In the 7Now case, the Full Court reminded us that the classic statement of when a sign is used as a trade mark for the purposes of Australian law is the Oil Drop Man case:[1]

With the aid of the definition of ‘trade mark’ in s. 6 of the [1955 Trade Marks] Act, the adverbial expression [‘as a trade mark’] may be expanded so that the question becomes whether, in the setting in which the particular pictures referred to were presented, they would have appeared to the television viewer as possessing the character of devices, or brands, which the appellant was using or proposing to use in relation to petrol for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate, a connexion in the course of trade between the petrol and the appellant. Did they appear to be thrown on to the screen as being marks for distinguishing Shell petrol from other petrol in the course of trade?

In that case, the High Court held that Shell was not using a caricature image of an animated oil drop man as a trade mark in its television advertisements and so did not infringe Esso’s registered trade marks depicting a “humanized oil-drop”. A surprising aspect of that decision is that, in doing so, the High Court overruled Windeyer J who had found it did infringe.

Unlike the High Court (who did watch the ads), we can’t see how Shell’s Oil Drop Man appeared. So it has always been something of a challenge to understand why.

Now Dr Vicki Huang, who professes law at Deakin University, has published an article revealing to the world some images from the original appeal books: “Uncovering secrets of Australia’s landmark High Court cases” (2024) 54 Australian Bar Review 209. (Unfortunately, its behind a paywall.) If you are a trade mark lawyer trying to grapple with what the late Prof. Lahore always regarded as the most elusive concept in Australian IP law, you should read it!

Back to the 7Now case

Seven had registered 7NOW as a trade mark, TM No 1540574, in respect of a range of goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 41. 7-Eleven filed non-use applications against the trade mark on the s 92(4)(b) grounds.

By the time the proceeding reached the Full Court, four categories of goods and services in classes 9 and 35 were still in dispute (7-Eleven not pursuing the other services):

Category 1: computer software (in class 9);

Category 2: the promotion and sale of goods and services for others including through the distribution of online promotional material and promotional contests (in class 35);

Category 3: retail and wholesale services including retail trading via television programmes and by telephone and electronic means including the Internet (in class 35); and

Category 4: the bringing together, for the benefit of others, of a variety of goods enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase those goods including by mail order, telecommunications, website or television shopping channels (in class 35).

The trial Judge found that Seven had not discharged its onus under s 100 to show it had used its trade mark in respect of any of the categories and refused to exercise the discretion under s 101 not to order removal.

The Full Court allowed Seven’s appeal in relation to the promotion of goods and services for others only in Category 2 but otherwised dismissed it. As the Full Court emphasised in its quote from the Oil Drop Man case, the different outcomes arose from whether or not Seven’s use of its sign was sufficiently connected with the particular category.

How Seven used its 7NOW mark

It seems Seven’s evidence of use in the relevant period was limited to a one-page website:

As you can see, there is a 7NOW banner at the top of the page. Then (during the relevant period) there were 48 “tiles” which, if clicked, transferred the user to a different websites (some of which were associated with Seven such as 7plus and 7travel while others were not) and, finally, there was a panel with four columns of links at the bottom of the page.

Category 2 services

In effect the website operated as advertising the services being offered from the various websites linked through the 48 “tiles”. As the Full Court explained at [105], the

grid of those icons – [brought] to the consumer’s attention the services and goods offered on the linked websites and [made] it easier for the consumer to acquire those services and goods….

That was the performance of promotional services and those services were provided by reference to the 7NOW badge which clearly functioned as a trade mark. Accordingly, at [106]:

In our view, the connection shown on the website between the 7NOW mark, which has the character of a brand, and the actual performance of those promotional services is sufficient to mean that it has been used as a trade mark in relation to those services. ….

But, as the 7NOW website did not actually offer any goods or services for sale as opposed to the linked websites, the website was not “a means of delivering the service of selling goods. And so, Seven had not proved use of the mark in relation to sales services.

The other categories

To establish use in relation to computer software, Seven relied on the bottom two links under the 7Plus logo in the first column in the page “footer”:

“Get the iOS App

“Get the Android App”

If you clicked on one or other of those links, you were transferred to the page in the App store or the Android Play store where you could download the 7Plus app. 7NOW did not appear anywhere on those pages.

The Full Court agreed with the primary Judge’s conclusion that 7NOW had not been used to distinguish the (7PLUS) software from software being offered by third parties. A number of considerations from the overall context of the use played into this conclusion. These included:

• 7NOW appeared only once on the website – at the top of the page and separated from the Store links by the 48 “tiles”;
• the links to the stores were very much smaller and much less prominent that the tiles;
• the links appeared under the, relatively speaking, prominent 7PLUS logo
• there was no reference to the 7plus app at all;
• getting to the software involved a 3-step process
  • the user had to navigate to the 7NOW page
  • the user then had to scroll down to links at the bottom of the page and perceived and read the words under the 7PLUS logo; and
  • then click on the link and be transferred to the page;
• the 7NOW trade mark did not appear on the Store page

The same problem infected the claimed use for the other categories. Seven’s argument was that its 7NOW trade mark was being used for retail services because a user could buy goods of services from the websites linked by some of the tiles. So for example if one clicked on the tile for 7travel or House & Garden, this is what happened:

As with the computer software, however, the Full Court found the consumer would think the goods or services being offered from the linked website were being offered by reference to the trade mark(s) on that website. The connection between the 7NOW trade mark and the service of offering the goods or services in question for sale was not so much attenuated as severed.

If you do a Google search to buy some product, such as say a book, and the search results bring up, say, 10 or 20 links to sites from which you can buy the book, would you think Google was engaging in retailing the book?

Discretion

Finally, the Full Court rejected the appeal from the refusal to exercise the discretion against removal.

Seven placed heavy reliance on its family of 7-formative marks and its reputation in particularly the 7plus mark given there were some 12.5 million registered users of the 7plus app.

A number of factors played into the Full Court’s conclusion at [166] that the risk of confusion if another trader were to use 7NOW in relation to, say, retail services [via convenience stores] was so high that it would be reasonable to retain the registration for all categoires.  Seven Network (Operations) Limited v 7-Eleven Inc [2024] FCAFC 65 (Burley, Jackson & Downes JJ)

---

1. Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd [1963] HCA 66; (1963) 109 CLR 407 at 425 (Kitto J, Dixon CJ, Taylor and Owen JJ agreeing). The Full Federal Court supplied the emphasis.  ?