Carlton & United Breweries Limited v Coors Brewing Company

Case

[1997] ATMO 21

12 May 1997


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Carlton & United Breweries Limited v Coors Brewing Company [1997] ATMO 21 [1997] ATMO 21 12 May 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carlton & United Breweries Limited (CUB) and Coors Brewing Company (Coors) were parties to proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia concerning the use of the trade mark "XXXX" and "X". CUB, the owner of the registered trade mark "XXXX" for beer, alleged that Coors' use of the mark "X" in relation to its beer products infringed CUB's trade mark rights. Coors, in turn, sought to have CUB's trade mark registration partially revoked.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Coors' use of the mark "X" constituted an infringement of CUB's registered trade mark "XXXX", and whether CUB's registration for "XXXX" should be revoked to the extent that it covered beer. The Court was required to consider the principles of trade mark infringement, particularly the likelihood of deception or confusion, and the grounds for revocation of a trade mark registration, including non-use.

The Court found that the use of "X" by Coors did not infringe CUB's trade mark "XXXX". This was based on the assessment that there was no likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers as to the origin of the goods. The Court reasoned that the marks, while visually similar in their use of the letter "X", were sufficiently distinct in their overall presentation and context of use in the marketplace to avoid confusion. Furthermore, the Court considered the evidence of use and determined that CUB had established sufficient use of its "XXXX" mark in relation to beer to maintain its registration.

Consequently, the Court dismissed CUB's claim for trade mark infringement and refused Coors' application for revocation of CUB's trade mark registration.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Commercial Law

  • Intellectual Property

Legal Concepts

  • Injunction

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

11

Statutory Material Cited

0