Selth v Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (No 3)

In the Federal Court, the Australian Bar Association (ABA) filed an application against Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd, represented by Mr Minus, seeking declarations and injunctions concerning the respondents' registration of the business names Australian Bar Association and Australian Barristers Association. The ABA, represented by ABA Ltd, argued that the respondents' use of these names infringed on their registered trademarks, which were previously held by an individual on behalf of the ABA. Additionally, the ABA contested the respondents' use of the name "AustBar" in various configurations, including domain names such as austbar and austbaradr, as well as the use of specific websites with these domain names. The ABA also sought to hold Mr Minus accessorially liable for the respondents' actions.

The court needed to determine whether the respondents' use of the names and domain names infringed the ABA's registered trademarks and whether Mr Minus was accessorially liable for these actions. The ABA argued that the respondents' use of the names and domain names was likely to cause confusion and deception among the public, given the established reputation of the ABA's trademarks. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that their use of the names and domain names did not infringe on the ABA's trademarks and that they had the right to use the names in question.

The court found that the respondents' use of the business names and domain names did infringe on the ABA's registered trademarks, as the names and domain names were too similar to the ABA's trademarks, which were well-established and had a significant reputation in the legal community. The court also held Mr Minus accessorially liable for the respondents' actions, as he had knowledge of the infringement and did not take adequate steps to prevent it. Consequently, the court granted the ABA's application for declarations and injunctions against the respondents and ordered Mr Minus to be held accessorially liable.

The court directed the ABA to submit proposed orders arising out of the reasons for judgment published that day. The parties were also directed to file and serve submissions in relation to the costs of and incidental to the proceedings within three weeks. The costs of the proceedings were reserved.