Lodestar Anstalt v Campari America LLC
Case
•
[2016] FCAFC 92
•28 June 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lodestar Anstalt v Campari America LLC [2016] FCAFC 92
[2016] FCAFC 92
28 June 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerns a dispute between the Wild Turkey interests, who own the Wild Turkey trade mark, and the Irish Whiskey interests, who own the Wild Geese trade mark. The Irish Whiskey interests applied for the removal of the Wild Geese trade mark from the Register, and the Wild Turkey interests opposed the application. The primary judge dismissed the application for removal, and the Irish Whiskey interests appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The appeal was allowed, and the Wild Turkey interests were ordered to pay the Irish Whiskey interests’ costs.
The central issue before the court was whether the use of the Wild Geese trade mark by the licensee, WGW, during the period of non-use by the registered owner, constituted authorised use, as required by the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 8. The court had to determine whether the registered owner exercised control over the use of the trade mark by the licensee and whether the trade mark indicated a connection in the course of trade with the registered owner. The court also had to consider whether the registered owner's contractual power was sufficient to establish control over the use of the trade mark.
The court held that the Wild Turkey interests did not prove that the registered owner exercised control over the use of the Wild Geese trade mark by WGW during the period of non-use. The court found that the registered owner did not exercise quality control over the products sold by WGW, and the use of the trade mark by WGW was not authorised use for the purpose of the Act. The court also held that the trade mark did not indicate a connection in the course of trade with the registered owner during the period of non-use. The court rejected the argument that the registered owner's contractual power was sufficient to establish control over the use of the trade mark.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made by the primary judge. The court dismissed the appeal to the Court from the decision of the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks with costs. The Wild Turkey interests were ordered to pay the Irish Whiskey interests’ costs of the appeal.
The central issue before the court was whether the use of the Wild Geese trade mark by the licensee, WGW, during the period of non-use by the registered owner, constituted authorised use, as required by the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 8. The court had to determine whether the registered owner exercised control over the use of the trade mark by the licensee and whether the trade mark indicated a connection in the course of trade with the registered owner. The court also had to consider whether the registered owner's contractual power was sufficient to establish control over the use of the trade mark.
The court held that the Wild Turkey interests did not prove that the registered owner exercised control over the use of the Wild Geese trade mark by WGW during the period of non-use. The court found that the registered owner did not exercise quality control over the products sold by WGW, and the use of the trade mark by WGW was not authorised use for the purpose of the Act. The court also held that the trade mark did not indicate a connection in the course of trade with the registered owner during the period of non-use. The court rejected the argument that the registered owner's contractual power was sufficient to establish control over the use of the trade mark.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made by the primary judge. The court dismissed the appeal to the Court from the decision of the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks with costs. The Wild Turkey interests were ordered to pay the Irish Whiskey interests’ costs of the appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Trade Mark Law
-
Trade Mark Registration
-
Trade Mark Non-Use
-
Authorised Use
-
Quality Control
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Sunpab Health Products Pty Ltd v I.E. Medica Inc [2025] ATMO 90
Cases Citing This Decision
136
Opposition by Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC to applications under section 92 of the
[2025] ATMO 194
Zhejiang Leapmotor Technology Co., Ltd v Zhihua Liu
[2025] ATMO 165
Cases Cited
29
Statutory Material Cited
6
Skyy Spirits LLC v Lodestar Anstalt
[2015] FCA 509
State of New South Wales v Banabelle Electrical Pty Ltd
[2002] NSWSC 178
Imperial Chemical Industries plc v EI Dupont De Nemours & Co
[2002] FCAFC 264