Dial-an-Angel Pty Ltd v Saggitaur Services Systems Pty Ltd
Case
•
[1990] FCA 312
•29 JUNE 1990
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dial-an-Angel Pty Ltd v Saggitaur Services Systems Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 312
[1990] FCA 312
29 JUNE 1990
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Dial-an-Angel Pty Ltd brought an action against Saggitaur Services Systems Pty Ltd for the alleged infringement of two registered trade marks: the name "Dial-An'Angel" and a logo depicting an outline of an angel with children silhouetted against a house. Saggitaur was alleged to be carrying on a business in the same area of registration under the name "Guardian Angel" and using a logo of an angel with two children. The court had to decide whether the name and logo used by Saggitaur were deceptively similar to those of Dial-an-Angel. Additionally, Saggitaur had filed a cross-claim alleging that Dial-an-Angel had failed to commence and prosecute its claim with due diligence.
The court found that Saggitaur's use of the name "Guardian Angel" and the similar logo was indeed deceptively similar to Dial-an-Angel's trade marks. This similarity could cause confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that the services provided by Saggitaur were associated with or endorsed by Dial-an-Angel. Regarding the cross-claim, the court found no merit in Saggitaur's allegation that Dial-an-Angel had not acted with due diligence in bringing the claim.
The court ordered that Saggitaur, its servants, and agents be restrained from using the contested logo in connection with employment agency services, childcare services, or childcare training. This restraint was to take effect after a one-month suspension period. The cross-claim was dismissed, and Saggitaur was ordered to pay Dial-an-Angel's costs of the proceedings.
The court found that Saggitaur's use of the name "Guardian Angel" and the similar logo was indeed deceptively similar to Dial-an-Angel's trade marks. This similarity could cause confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that the services provided by Saggitaur were associated with or endorsed by Dial-an-Angel. Regarding the cross-claim, the court found no merit in Saggitaur's allegation that Dial-an-Angel had not acted with due diligence in bringing the claim.
The court ordered that Saggitaur, its servants, and agents be restrained from using the contested logo in connection with employment agency services, childcare services, or childcare training. This restraint was to take effect after a one-month suspension period. The cross-claim was dismissed, and Saggitaur was ordered to pay Dial-an-Angel's costs of the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Trade Marks
-
Deceptive Similarity
-
Injunction
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Bacall & Zagar [2020] FamCA 350
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Velten & Velten
[2020] FamCA 384
Bacall & Zagar
[2020] FamCA 350
Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v Brasnovic
[2013] NSWDC 131
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Apple Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2014] FCA 1304