Bose Corporation v Target Australia Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2008] ATMO 54
•30 June 2008
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bose Corporation v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2008] ATMO 54
[2008] ATMO 54
30 June 2008
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bose Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd and Bose Corporation (USA) (collectively, Bose) brought proceedings against Target Australia Pty Ltd (Target) in the Federal Court of Australia. Bose alleged that Target had infringed its trade mark rights by selling headphones that were deceptively similar to Bose's own products. Bose sought an injunction and damages.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Target's sale of the headphones constituted trade mark infringement under the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved determining whether the mark used by Target on its headphones was substantially identical or deceptively similar to Bose's registered trade mark for "Bose" in relation to audio equipment, and whether the use of the mark was in relation to goods for which the Bose trade mark was registered.
Justice Murray found that the mark used by Target on its headphones was not substantially identical or deceptively similar to Bose's registered trade mark. Her Honour considered the visual and aural similarities and differences between the marks, as well as the overall commercial impression created by each. The Court concluded that the average consumer, when presented with the two marks in the relevant context, would not be deceived or confused into believing that Target's headphones were manufactured or endorsed by Bose.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed Bose's claim for trade mark infringement.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Target's sale of the headphones constituted trade mark infringement under the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved determining whether the mark used by Target on its headphones was substantially identical or deceptively similar to Bose's registered trade mark for "Bose" in relation to audio equipment, and whether the use of the mark was in relation to goods for which the Bose trade mark was registered.
Justice Murray found that the mark used by Target on its headphones was not substantially identical or deceptively similar to Bose's registered trade mark. Her Honour considered the visual and aural similarities and differences between the marks, as well as the overall commercial impression created by each. The Court concluded that the average consumer, when presented with the two marks in the relevant context, would not be deceived or confused into believing that Target's headphones were manufactured or endorsed by Bose.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed Bose's claim for trade mark infringement.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Damages
-
Breach
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Rado Uhren AG (Rado Watch Co. Ltd) (Montres Rado SA) v Aleksandr Vladimirovich Suvorin [2010] ATMO 118
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
0
Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v FS Walton & Co Ltd
[1937] HCA 51
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020