A.I.A. Agricola Italiana Alimentare S.p.A v Borgo Developments Pty Ltd as trustee for the L Borgo Trust
Case
•
[2018] ATMO 184
•7 November 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
A.I.A. Agricola Italiana Alimentare S.p.A v Borgo Developments Pty Ltd as trustee for the L Borgo Trust [2018] ATMO 184
[2018] ATMO 184
7 November 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter came before the court concerning an application by A.I.A. Agricola Italiana Alimentare S.p.A. (the Applicant) to register a trade mark. Borgo Developments Pty Ltd as trustee for the L Borgo Trust (the Opponent) opposed this application, asserting rights in certain trade marks and claiming they were substantially identical or deceptively similar to the Applicant's proposed mark, and that the Applicant's mark would deceive or cause confusion due to the Opponent's reputation.
The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Applicant's trade mark was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the Opponent's registered trade marks, pursuant to section 44 of the relevant Act. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the use of the Applicant's trade mark would deceive or cause confusion due to the Opponent's reputation in Australia, as provided for under section 60 of the Act.
In relation to the section 44 ground, the court found that while the Opponent's registrations had earlier priority dates and the goods were similar, the essential feature of the Opponent's registrations was the word "NEGRONI." A comparison of the marks revealed a total impression of dissimilarity, and applying the principles of deceptive similarity, the court concluded that an ordinary person would not be confused. Therefore, the Opponent failed to establish its ground under section 44. Regarding section 60, the court noted that the Opponent needed to demonstrate a reputation in Australia at the priority date and that the use of the Applicant's mark would deceive or cause confusion. The court referenced authorities establishing that a "significant number of persons" must be aware of the mark for it to have a sufficient reputation, with what constitutes "significant" depending on the nature of the goods or services.
The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Applicant's trade mark was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the Opponent's registered trade marks, pursuant to section 44 of the relevant Act. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the use of the Applicant's trade mark would deceive or cause confusion due to the Opponent's reputation in Australia, as provided for under section 60 of the Act.
In relation to the section 44 ground, the court found that while the Opponent's registrations had earlier priority dates and the goods were similar, the essential feature of the Opponent's registrations was the word "NEGRONI." A comparison of the marks revealed a total impression of dissimilarity, and applying the principles of deceptive similarity, the court concluded that an ordinary person would not be confused. Therefore, the Opponent failed to establish its ground under section 44. Regarding section 60, the court noted that the Opponent needed to demonstrate a reputation in Australia at the priority date and that the use of the Applicant's mark would deceive or cause confusion. The court referenced authorities establishing that a "significant number of persons" must be aware of the mark for it to have a sufficient reputation, with what constitutes "significant" depending on the nature of the goods or services.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Appeal
-
Offer and Acceptance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
28
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Fraser Henleins Pty Ltd v Cody
[1945] HCA 49