Consumer & Retail – Page 16

Is Purchase of a Google AdWord use of a Trade Mark? Case Examined by Australian Federal Court

Apr 06 2016

The Federal Court of Australia has examined the issue of trade mark infringement by advertisers using competitors’ trade marks as Google AdWords. Advertisers need to ensure they do not use competitors’ marks as a ‘badge of origin’ to avoid trade mark infringement.

Veda Advantage Limited v Malouf Group Enterprises Pty Limited concerned Veda, a financial services company and Malouf, a credit repair business. A “VedaScore” is a number that summarises the information in a person’s credit file and is expressed as a number between 0 and 1200. In simple terms, the higher a person’s VedaScore, the better that person’s credit profile and the more likely that person will receive credit.

Malouf purchased a series of keywords that contained the word “veda”, so when a consumer typed “veda” into Google’s search engine, their search results would include sponsored ad links for Malouf’s services.

Fashion Law Newsletter – Autumn/Winter 2016 edition

Apr 06 2016

By Lisa Egan

We are excited to bring you the next edition of Fashion Law, highlighting important issues at the crossroads of fashion and the law.

Fashion Law gives you the latest updates on legal issues affecting the fashion industry. This edition includes articles on how to set up your business in order to minimise risk, workplace bullying in the retail environment, examples of trade mark and copyright disputes by major fashion brands and also the very tricky industry issues of how thin is too thin for fashion models.

Please click here to read the Autumn/Winter 2016 edition of Fashion Law.

A Right (Design) Carry-On!

Apr 05 2016

By Briony Pollard and Serena Totino

Designers will be disappointed by the recent Supreme Court decision in the long running Trunki (suit) case between Magmatic and PMS International, which finally put to bed whether surface decoration could and should form part of the global comparison test when assessing infringement of a Registered Community Design (RCD).

In 2013 Magmatic Ltd., manufacturer of ‘Trunki’, the ride-on suitcases for children, attempted to enforce its RCD against PMS International Group plc, importer and seller of the ‘Kiddee case’ in the UK and Germany.

Both Trunki and Kiddee cases are designed to look like animals, both have four wheels, a clasp at the front and a saddle-shaped top making the cases easy for children to ride on. The differences between the cases are largely limited to colour and the ‘protuberances’, which look like horns in the Trunki case and antennae or ears in the Kiddee case.

Overseas manufacturers supplying goods for ultimate sale in Australia liable for trade mark infringement under Australian law

Apr 01 2016

By Gregory Pieris and Allison Wallace

Playgro Pty Ltd v Playgo Art and Craft Manufactory Limited [2016] FCA 280

Manufacturers selling products into Australia be warned: the fact you are located outside of Australia will not protect you from infringing Australian trade marks. This was the message the Federal Court handed down in the recent decision of Playgro Pty Ltd v Playgo Art and Craft Manufactory Limited [2016] FCA 280.

Playgo was a Chinese manufacturer of children’s toys sold for many years under the “PLAYGO” trade mark. Playgo agreed to supply its toys to a number of well-known Australian retailers, who then imported the products into Australia and sold them in stores across the country. Australian company Playgro commenced proceedings against Playgo, arguing that it infringed various Australian registered trade marks for “PLAYGRO”.

Additional Damages Under the Trade Marks Act

Jan 07 2016

By Chris Round

In a decision of the Federal Court in October 2015 concerning trademarks affixed to Chinese herbal teas, the Federal Court of Australia awarded additional damages to an applicant in circumstances where the evidence required to prove compensatory damages was not available.

In Truong Giang Corporation v Quach [2015] FCA 1097, the applicant Truong Giang Corporation (TG Corp) is a Californian company that produces a green leaf herbal tea product which it sells under the name “3 Ballerina Tea”. It has sold that product in the United States since 1991 and in Australia since 1994, in distinctive dark green packaging which, amongst other things, features a prominent device or mark. In this proceeding TG Corp claimed that the respondents Mr Quach, New Leaf and Mr Alexandrou were involved in selling relatively large quantities of a tea product packaged in a deceptively similar way to the genuine 3 Ballerina Tea. Since 2006, TG Corp through its agents sold substantial quantities of 3 Ballerina Tea throughout Australia, mainly through Asian supermarkets and health food stores.

Fashion Law – Spring/Summer 2015 Edition

Sep 30 2015

“Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.” Coco Chanel

We are excited to bring you the third edition of Fashion Law, highlighting important issues at the crossroads of fashion and the law.

Fashion Law gives you the latest updates on legal issues affecting your industry. This issue includes the various awards and grants available to new and emerging fashion designers, as well as what to do if your promotional images are reproduced without your permission.

Please click here to read the Spring/Summer 2015 edition of Fashion Law.

H&M Unsuccessful in Challenge to YSL’s Registered Designs for Handbags

Sep 29 2015

Fashion retailer, H&M has been unsuccessful in its application to the EU General Court to invalidate YSL’s Community designs for handbags. Community designs protect designs for up to 25 years in every EU Member State. In November 2006, YSL successfully registered two of its designs for handbags. H&M had applied for a declaration of invalidity for these two YSL designs arguing that the designs had no individual character.

Ali Baba Launches a New Platform to Fight Counterfeiters

Aug 26 2015

The online marketplace continues to generate a vast number of fresh opportunities for businesses, such as the opening up of global trade channels to manufacturers and retailers that were previously restricted to their own local market. However, these opportunities come with very real risks and traders are becoming increasingly concerned about the sale of counterfeit goods through eCommerce stores such as Ali Express and the sale of re-branded copied goods through B2B websites such as Tao Bao.

Replica Furniture: A Call to Arms

Jul 30 2015

In a four-part series recently published in Habitus Living, we explore the issues faced by makers of original and authentic designs by the rise of the replica furniture industry in Australia.

The popularity of reality renovation shows has sparked interest and demand for designer furniture, homewares and lighting products. Consumers seeking such products at affordable prices have been serviced by businesses dedicated to the sale of replica furniture products that are manufactured cheaply overseas and widely available online.

Assos v Asos Trade Mark Dispute: UK Supreme Court Refuses Permission to Appeal

Jul 30 2015

The UK Supreme Court (the country’s highest court of appeal) has refused permission to appeal in the long-running Assos v Asos trade mark dispute.

As reported in our post on 2 April 2015 here, the Court of Appeal held that online retailer Asos did not infringe Swiss clothing company, Assos’s, Community trade mark as use of the ASOS brand was defensible under the ‘own name’ defence in Community law.

Category:Consumer & Retail