Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5)

The case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) before Markovic J involved a dispute between Ms Taylor and Killer Queen, LLC, and its affiliates, over the alleged infringement of a registered trade mark. The primary issue was whether Killer Queen, LLC and its affiliates were liable for the infringement of Ms Taylor's registered trade mark pursuant to section 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). The Court also had to determine the nature of certain merchandise sold in Australia and whether it constituted clothes or goods of the same description as clothes. Another key issue was the availability of certain defences under sections 120(2) and 122(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). The Court examined whether the respondents were entitled to the "own name" defence and whether the use of the infringing mark was in good faith. The Court also considered whether the respondents would obtain registration of the infringing mark for clothes if they were to apply for it. In addition, the Court addressed the cross-claim made by Ms Taylor to rectify the Register of Trade Marks by cancelling the respondents' marks.

The Court held that Killer Queen, LLC and its affiliates were liable for the infringement of Ms Taylor's registered trade mark, as they were joint tortfeasors in breach of section 120 of the Act. The Court found that some of the merchandise sold in Australia constituted clothes or goods of the same description as clothes. The Court further held that certain defences under sections 120(2) and 122(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) were available to the respondents, but they did not succeed in establishing the "own name" defence. The Court found that the respondents would not obtain registration of the infringing mark for clothes if they were to apply for it. Regarding the cross-claim, the Court found that Ms Taylor was not entitled to the relief sought, as the grounds in sections 88(2)(a) and 88(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) were not established.

The Court further held that Ms Taylor was not entitled to injunctive relief, as her claim was barred by laches and acquiescence. The Court also found that Ms Taylor was not entitled to additional damages. Lastly, the Court granted the respondents' application for non-publication orders in relation to certain documents and information, considering it necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

In conclusion, the Court found in favour of Ms Taylor on the infringement claim but rejected her cross-claim for rectification of the Register of Trade Marks. The Court also held that the respondents were entitled to certain defences under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) and granted non-publication orders for specific documents and information.