Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v Adidas AG
Case
•
[1997] ATMO 52
•25 September 1997
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v Adidas AG [1997] ATMO 52
[1997] ATMO 52
25 September 1997
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The dispute in *Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd v Adidas AG* concerned the alleged infringement of Adidas AG's registered trade mark, specifically the three-stripe mark, by Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The High Court was required to determine whether Figgins Holdings' use of a two-stripe mark on its footwear constituted an infringement of Adidas AG's registered three-stripe trade mark. This involved considering the scope of protection afforded to registered trade marks and the test for infringement under the relevant trade marks legislation.
The Court applied the principles of trade mark infringement, focusing on whether the mark used by Figgins Holdings was "substantially identical" or "deceptively similar" to the registered three-stripe mark. The High Court ultimately found that the two-stripe mark was not deceptively similar to the three-stripe mark, and therefore, no infringement had occurred. The reasoning centred on a careful comparison of the visual appearance and overall impression of the two marks, taking into account the differences in the number of stripes and their placement.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower courts.
The High Court was required to determine whether Figgins Holdings' use of a two-stripe mark on its footwear constituted an infringement of Adidas AG's registered three-stripe trade mark. This involved considering the scope of protection afforded to registered trade marks and the test for infringement under the relevant trade marks legislation.
The Court applied the principles of trade mark infringement, focusing on whether the mark used by Figgins Holdings was "substantially identical" or "deceptively similar" to the registered three-stripe mark. The High Court ultimately found that the two-stripe mark was not deceptively similar to the three-stripe mark, and therefore, no infringement had occurred. The reasoning centred on a careful comparison of the visual appearance and overall impression of the two marks, taking into account the differences in the number of stripes and their placement.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower courts.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
16
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020