Le Cordon Bleu BV v Cordon Bleu International Ltee

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Le Cordon Bleu B.V. v Cordon Bleu International Ltee [2000] FCA 1587

LE CORDON BLEU B.V. V CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTEE
NO. VG 16 OF 1998

RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE V CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTEE
NO. VG 382 OF 1997

CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTEE V RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE
NO. NG 557 OF 1997

HEEREY J
10 NOVEMBER 2000
SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 16 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

BETWEEN:	LE CORDON BLEU B.V. APPLICANT
AND:	CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTEE RESPONDENT
VG 382 OF 1997
BETWEEN:	RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE APPLICANT
AND:	CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTEE RESPONDENT
NG 557 OF 1997
BETWEEN:	CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTEE APPLICANT
AND:	RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE:	10 NOVEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

CORRIGENDUM

In the Reasons for Judgment handed down by Justice Heerey on 10 November 2000, please remove the word “companies” at line 7 of the catchwords and replace with the word “consumers”.  The line should now read “whether representative of relevant class of consumers”.  Please refer to replacement judgment.

Louise Braithwaite
Associate to Hon Justice Heerey

22 November 2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Le Cordon Bleu B.V. v Cordon Bleu International Ltee [2000] FCA 1587

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – trade marks – appeals from registration decisions – application for registration of mark “Cordon Bleu” by Canadian company in respect of pâté and meat spreads – opposition by French company proprietor of Le Cordon Bleu cooking school in Paris and (after priority date) Au Petit Cordon Bleu cooking school in London – whether marks likely to deceive or cause confusion – reputation of opponent in Australia – no sales or advertising – evidence as to knowledge of opponent’s business by cookery experts – whether representative of relevant class of companies – mistaken assumption of witnesses that opponent proprietor of London school – opinion evidence by marketing expert – lack of empirical basis – reputation of Canadian company’s product in Australia – no evidence of actual confusion – meanings of “cordon bleu” – metaphorical meaning – whether mark not entitled to protection in a court of justice – whether confined to inherent characteristics of the mark – application by French company for registration of device mark including words “CORDON BLEU” – whether deceptively similar to Canadian company’s mark – whether goods of the same description – whether likely to deceive or cause confusion

EVIDENCE – evidence of reputation of product – witnesses from specialist class – whether evidence can be extrapolated – opinion evidence of marketing expert – whether based on empirical evidence

WORDS AND PHRASES – “cordon bleu”

Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) 6(1), 6(3), 28(a), 28(d), 33(1)

Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 46 IPR 481 at par 74 mentioned
Re Arthur Fairest Ltd’s Application (1951) 68 RPC 197 applied
Nettlefold Advertising Pty Ltd v Nettlefold Signs Pty Ltd (1998) 45 IPR 393 at 395…