Wiley Publishing Inc v Moondance Pictures Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2004] ATMO 70
•30 November 2004
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Wiley Publishing Inc v Moondance Pictures Pty Ltd [2004] ATMO 70
[2004] ATMO 70
30 November 2004
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an application by Wiley Publishing Inc. to register a trade mark, opposed by Moondance Pictures Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether Wiley's proposed trade mark, a device, would be likely to deceive or cause confusion under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The matter was heard by Terry Williams, a Hearing Officer of the Trade Marks Hearings.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was to determine if the use of Wiley's device as a trade mark, in its own right and absent its association with the "…For Dummies" series, would be likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. This required an assessment of the reputation of the device as a trade mark, distinct from its role as a feature of specific book series.
The Hearing Officer found that while the device had been used extensively, much of this use was in conjunction with the "…For Dummies" branding. He was not satisfied that the device possessed a reputation independent of this context, nor that its normal and fair use absent such context would lead to deception or confusion. Consequently, the trade mark application was permitted to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal. Wiley was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was to determine if the use of Wiley's device as a trade mark, in its own right and absent its association with the "…For Dummies" series, would be likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. This required an assessment of the reputation of the device as a trade mark, distinct from its role as a feature of specific book series.
The Hearing Officer found that while the device had been used extensively, much of this use was in conjunction with the "…For Dummies" branding. He was not satisfied that the device possessed a reputation independent of this context, nor that its normal and fair use absent such context would lead to deception or confusion. Consequently, the trade mark application was permitted to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal. Wiley was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd [2005] ATMO 29
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc v Boondy Pty Ltd
[2008] ATMO 52
Cockburn Cement Ltd v BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2008] ATMO 13
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd
[2005] ATMO 29
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
TGI Friday's Australia Pty Ltd v TGI Friday's Inc
[2000] FCA 720
Newton Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc
[2000] ATMO 55
Flashback Holdings Pty Ltd v Showtime DVD Holdings Pty Ltd
[2008] FCA 1541