Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC v International Foodstuffs Co
Case
•
[2011] ATMO 104
•24 October 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC v International Foodstuffs Co [2011] ATMO 104
[2011] ATMO 104
24 October 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC (the Opponent) opposed the application by International Foodstuffs Co (the Applicant) for registration of the trade mark RITZ. The dispute concerned the Opponent's claim to prior use and reputation in the RITZ trade mark in relation to biscuits, crackers, and cookies. The matter came before the court for determination of the opposition.
The court was required to determine whether the Opponent had established sufficient use and reputation in its RITZ trade mark in Australia prior to the Applicant's priority date to warrant the refusal of the Applicant's trade mark application. Specifically, the court considered the extent of the Opponent's Australian registrations for the RITZ trade mark, the duration and geographical spread of its sales and advertising of RITZ branded goods in Australia, and the overall recognition of the RITZ trade mark among Australian consumers.
The court considered evidence from Beverly May Brooks, the Opponent's manager of trade mark administration, and Ben Hill, the Opponent's category head for biscuits in Australia and New Zealand. Ms Brooks provided details of the Opponent's history dating back to 1903 and its global presence as the world's second-largest food company. She highlighted three Australian registrations for the RITZ trade mark and stated that the Opponent's RITZ branded biscuits, crackers, and cookies have been distributed in Australia for approximately 59 years. Mr Hill confirmed that the RITZ goods are sold through major national retailers such as Coles and Woolworths, as well as other supermarkets across Australia. He also noted that the RITZ trade mark appears on all packaging for the goods, and detailed the range of RITZ products available in Australia. While specific sales and advertising figures were confidential, the evidence indicated very significant sales in Australia. The court applied principles relating to trade mark registration and the assessment of prior use and reputation in the context of trade mark oppositions.
The court was required to determine whether the Opponent had established sufficient use and reputation in its RITZ trade mark in Australia prior to the Applicant's priority date to warrant the refusal of the Applicant's trade mark application. Specifically, the court considered the extent of the Opponent's Australian registrations for the RITZ trade mark, the duration and geographical spread of its sales and advertising of RITZ branded goods in Australia, and the overall recognition of the RITZ trade mark among Australian consumers.
The court considered evidence from Beverly May Brooks, the Opponent's manager of trade mark administration, and Ben Hill, the Opponent's category head for biscuits in Australia and New Zealand. Ms Brooks provided details of the Opponent's history dating back to 1903 and its global presence as the world's second-largest food company. She highlighted three Australian registrations for the RITZ trade mark and stated that the Opponent's RITZ branded biscuits, crackers, and cookies have been distributed in Australia for approximately 59 years. Mr Hill confirmed that the RITZ goods are sold through major national retailers such as Coles and Woolworths, as well as other supermarkets across Australia. He also noted that the RITZ trade mark appears on all packaging for the goods, and detailed the range of RITZ products available in Australia. While specific sales and advertising figures were confidential, the evidence indicated very significant sales in Australia. The court applied principles relating to trade mark registration and the assessment of prior use and reputation in the context of trade mark oppositions.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
0
Apple Computer v TodayTech Group Pty Ltd
[2007] ATMO 40
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58