On 6 August 2025, the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) ordered that Projector Films Pty Ltd and director David Ngo (the Respondents) be stopped from promoting, causing to promote or authorising the Melbourne International Film Festival (the MIFF) to show the documentary titled “Never Get Busted!” unless the Applicant Stephen McCallum was attributed as “Principal Director.”
In a recent decision of the Australian Trade Marks Office, Karen Walker Limited successfully opposed the registration of the mark ‘Runaway the Label‘ for clothing, footwear and headgear (class 25) and online retail services (class 35). We focus here on Delegate’s findings on deceptive similarity under s 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou has delivered his opinion in the case Deity Shoes, S.L. v Mundorama Confort, S.L. and another (Case C 323/24). The case considers whether a footwear design made by Deity Shoes, S.L. (Deity Shoes) qualified for protection as a design in the European Union and raised important questions about the relevance of the status of the designer’s effort and skill and surrounding factors in the assessment of design.
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the Unitary Patent, which launched on 1 June 2023, marked a historic milestone, allowing for the enforcement of patents across borders via a single court. The UPC has now issued its first Annual Report.
New developments in Europe make a filing strategy for registered designs and trade marks even more essential for the modern consumer business. Read on to find out more.
“Brat summer”, “coquette aesthetic”, “strawberry milk makeup”: social media trends can achieve viral status essentially overnight. However, their popularity is frequently short-lived. As a result, brands will often quickly devise marketing strategies incorporating these trends and catchphrases as soon as possible to capitalise off the current popularity and appeal to consumers.
On 9 May 2024, the US Supreme Court (the Court) held that there is no three-year limit on monetary damages for timely filed copyright infringement claims. The 6–3 decision resolves a circuit split, opens the doors to larger potential damages awards for plaintiffs, is likely to lead to increased litigation over older infringements, and leaves open the question of whether the “discovery rule” applies to copyright infringement claims. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, No. 22-1078, 601 U.S. – (2024).
In January 2024, UNIQLO CO., LTD. (UNIQLO) announced that it had filed a lawsuit before the Tokyo District Court against Roadget Business Pte. Ltd., Fashion Choice Pte. Ltd., and SHEIN Japan Co., Ltd. (collectively, SHEIN Parties). UNIQLO alleges that the SHEIN Parties have infringed Japan’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act by selling dupes of UNIQLO’s popular round mini shoulder bag, which went viral on TikTok last year due to its minimalistic, water-repellent exterior and ability to hold a surprisingly large volume of products for its size. UNIQLO is demanding that the SHEIN parties cease selling the dupe bags and pay damages incurred as a result of sale of the SHEIN Parties’ dupe products.
In KFC THC V Ltd v. Grill’d IP Pty Ltd [2023] ATMO 192, KFC THC V Ltd (KFC) brought an opposition against the registration of the trade mark “HFC” filed by Grill’d IP Pty Ltd (Grill’d). KFC is a global chain of fast food restaurants otherwise known as Kentucky Fried Chicken. Grill’d is an Australian chain of burger restaurants which markets its food as a healthier, fresher alternative to the major fast food chains. The trade mark “HFC,” standing for “Healthy Fried Chicken,” is used by Grill’d for the fried chicken options on its menu.
Hamburg, Germany – Not only known for its famous seafood and the third largest European seaport for goods and cargo handling1, but also a considerable and noteworthy jurisdiction when it comes to the protection and enforcement of trade mark rights in preliminary proceedings.
The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg found in a recent trade mark dispute in preliminary injunction proceedings (Decision of 29 September 2022 – 5 U 91/21) between the “Deutsche Telekom” (“Claimant”) and the Spanish telecommunication company “Telefónica” and its German subsidiary (together “Defendants”), that the application and use of a “T” consisting of five dots in combination with various Telefónica company symbols (e.g. shown below left and middle) (“Contested Signs”) constitute an infringement of the well-known “T-brand” (shown below right) (EUTM 215194 ; DE 39529531) of Deutsche Telekom (“T-Trade Mark”).
Telefónica company symbol (Contested Sign (1))
Telefónica company symbol (Contested Sign (2))
Deutsche Telekom “T-Trade Mark”
The Court found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs, confirmed that the “T”-brand has a reputation within the meaning of Art. 9 (2) lit. c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1001), and therefore concluded that the defendant’s trade mark infringes the claimant’s trade mark rights resulting in the grant of a preliminary injunction (“PI”).
