I Can't Believe It's Yogurt Ltd v Unilever Plc
Case
•
[2001] ATMO 120
•29 November 2001
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
I Can't Believe It's Yogurt Ltd v Unilever Plc [2001] ATMO 120
[2001] ATMO 120
29 November 2001
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *I Can't Believe It's Yogurt Ltd v Unilever Plc*, the applicant sought to register the trade mark "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT BUTTER!" in Australia. The opponent, Unilever Plc, opposed this registration. The case concerned an opposition to the registration of a trade mark, with the opponent raising concerns about the applicant's honesty in adopting the mark and their intention to continue using it.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated honest use of the trade mark in Australia and whether there was a genuine intention to continue using the mark beyond the limited promotional periods mentioned in the evidence. The court was required to consider if granting registration would extend the applicant's statutory rights for a period where there was no clear evidence of ongoing commercial interest or use.
The court considered submissions regarding the applicant's honesty in adopting the trade mark and the lack of evidence attesting to an intention to promote and sell goods under the mark beyond specific past promotions. The opponent argued that granting registration would extend the applicant's rights significantly without a corresponding demonstrable interest in the mark, potentially leading to future infringement claims where the applicant might have no real interest in the mark's continued use. The court acknowledged that a Hearing Officer might consider general knowledge and prevailing circumstances within a particular trade or place when assessing such matters.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated honest use of the trade mark in Australia and whether there was a genuine intention to continue using the mark beyond the limited promotional periods mentioned in the evidence. The court was required to consider if granting registration would extend the applicant's statutory rights for a period where there was no clear evidence of ongoing commercial interest or use.
The court considered submissions regarding the applicant's honesty in adopting the trade mark and the lack of evidence attesting to an intention to promote and sell goods under the mark beyond specific past promotions. The opponent argued that granting registration would extend the applicant's rights significantly without a corresponding demonstrable interest in the mark, potentially leading to future infringement claims where the applicant might have no real interest in the mark's continued use. The court acknowledged that a Hearing Officer might consider general knowledge and prevailing circumstances within a particular trade or place when assessing such matters.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Intention
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Abbott Laboratories v Perkin Elmer Corporation [2002] ATMO 101
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Apple Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2014] FCA 1304
Apple Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2014] FCA 1304