McDonald's Corporation v Steve M. Bowditch
Case
•
[1999] ATMO 104
•15 October 1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
McDonald's Corporation v Steve M. Bowditch [1999] ATMO 104
[1999] ATMO 104
15 October 1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
McDonald's Corporation opposed the registration of a trade mark application by Steve M. Bowditch for the mark "golden boomerangs" (and device) for services including tourist accommodation and fast food and restaurant services. The opposition was heard by the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the Registrar were whether the "golden boomerangs" trade mark was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to existing McDonald's trade marks, and whether its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion due to the reputation of McDonald's trade marks. These issues were primarily framed under sections 44 and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth).
The Registrar found that the "golden boomerangs" trade mark was neither substantially identical nor deceptively similar to McDonald's registered trade marks, including the "Golden Arches" logo. The Registrar reasoned that the visual and conceptual differences between the boomerangs device and the arches or "M" device were significant, and the word "golden" alone was insufficient to create deceptive similarity. This finding also meant that the threshold requirement for the section 60 ground, which requires substantial identity or deceptive similarity, was not met. Consequently, both grounds of opposition failed.
The legal issues before the Registrar were whether the "golden boomerangs" trade mark was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to existing McDonald's trade marks, and whether its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion due to the reputation of McDonald's trade marks. These issues were primarily framed under sections 44 and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth).
The Registrar found that the "golden boomerangs" trade mark was neither substantially identical nor deceptively similar to McDonald's registered trade marks, including the "Golden Arches" logo. The Registrar reasoned that the visual and conceptual differences between the boomerangs device and the arches or "M" device were significant, and the word "golden" alone was insufficient to create deceptive similarity. This finding also meant that the threshold requirement for the section 60 ground, which requires substantial identity or deceptive similarity, was not met. Consequently, both grounds of opposition failed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
General Electric Company v Galvin Engineering Pty Ltd [2000] ATMO 129
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Rolex SA v LG Display Co., Ltd
[2020] ATMO 136
General Electric Company v Galvin Engineering Pty Ltd
[2000] ATMO 129
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Apple Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2014] FCA 1304
Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v FS Walton & Co Ltd
[1937] HCA 51