Updates from March, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Ben Gardiner 7:45 am on 24 March 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Queen Adelaide just survives non-use application! Reportedly not amused. 

    Make Wine Pty Ltd v Modern Ancient Brands Pty Ltd [2017] ATMO 17 (24 February 2017)

    This was an application for removal for non-use of the trade mark depicted below.  The trade mark owner was unable to show use in the non-use period but discretion to not remove the mark from the register was exercised by the hearing officer.

    queen-adelaide

    The evidence showed that the mark had not been used by the owner since 2002 but it had been used by private individuals who had purchased wine prior to 2002 and subsequently sold it during the non-use period.  There was evidence of a dozen bottles that had been sold by individuals in this way for an average price of $2 to $3 each.

    The hearing officer considered that:

    1. The significant delay between the initial purchase of bottles and before they were offered for sale in the marketplace makes the link between the opponent and use of the Trade Mark within ‘the course of trade’ somewhat tenuous. Most of the very limited number of wines were essentially ‘off the market’ for a period of decades before they were sold at minimal prices during a time when the opponent was not promoting the Trade Mark on wine in the marketplace. While the wine was clearly not consumed while it was ‘off the market’ how long can goods be off the market and still remain in the course of trade for the purpose of defeating applications for removal for non-use? This is the question before me. While the wine before me has not been consumed, it has been off the market for many years before it was eventually sold at a public auction for what appears to be less than the wine originally may have been purchased for. The bottles were also sold individually rather than in cases by individuals. Given this substantial time lapse and the low reward for selling, I am not satisfied that those wines did remain in the course of trade over this period.

    The hearing officer concluded that this did not amount to trade mark use in the relevant sense.

    However, s 101(3) provides a discretion for the Registrar to elect to not remove a mark from the register even if the grounds for removal have been established.

    The hearing officer considered that in this case it was appropriate to exercise that discretion (and not order removal) because:

    1. The opponent does have a significant and enduring reputation in its QUEEN ADELAIDE branded wines. It has adopted a refreshed and new label for its wine which is at least deceptively similar to the Trade Mark. The respective trade marks both prominently contain a graphic device depicting Queen Adelaide and contain the words QUEEN ADELAIDE. These are the most prominent and striking features of the respective trade marks. I also note that it is common for traders that have been trading in the marketplace for a long time to update and alter their trade marks to make themselves more marketable in a constantly changing marketplace. Some traders which come to mind are Adidas ® and Kentucky Fried Chicken ®.
    2. The opponent is actively selling its QUEEN ADELAIDE wine under the refreshed label in the Australian market place and individuals are still clearly buying and selling wine bearing the Trade Mark. This is much more than a case of the opponent having a residual reputation in the Trade Mark. The opponent has an active and ongoing reputation in its QUEEN ADELAIDE branded wine and it is selling that wine under a trade mark which is at least deceptively similar to the Trade Mark.
    Advertisements
     
  • Ben Gardiner 12:43 pm on 1 June 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Wild Goose chase might go all the way: Skyy Spirits LLC v Lodestar Anstalt [2015] FCA 509. 

    The ongoing battle between the owners of Wild Turkey Bourbon and Wild Geese Rare Irish Whiskey (which has been running for nearly 15 years) continues rolling on. Justice Perram delivered judgment last week in an “appeal” from an ATMO decision in which the delegate ordered removal of the marks WILD GEESE and WILD GEESE WINES from the Register for non-use.

    The facts are a little unusual and slightly complicated.

    The owners of Wild Geese Rare Irish Whiskey first registered the word mark WILD GEESE in Australia in 2000 in classes 32 and 33. Subsequently, in 2005, a small South Australian wine maker applied to register the marks WILD GEESE and WILD GEESE WINES. The wine maker (which was run – or owned – by Adelaide silk Patrick O’Sullivan QC) was immediately confronted by the earlier registration. It sought to overcome this problem by having the earlier mark removed for non-use.

    Readers will know that a trade mark can be removed from the Register if it has not been used for a continuous period of three years: s 92 TMA.

    Mr O’Sullivan soon discovered that there was already another application to remove the earlier mark from the Register – it came from the Wild Turkey interests. After some correspondence between Mr O’Sullivan and Wild Turkey, they came to an agreement: he agreed to assign his company’s interests in its marks to Wild Turkey and they, in turn, agreed to license those marks back to his company in perpetuity for $1. Wild Turkey also took an assignment of Mr O’Sullivan’s company’s application to remove the Irish Whiskey WILD GEESE mark from the Register.

    That application ultimately succeeded – but not before going the Full Court of the Federal Court: Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt (2012) 287 ALR 221.

    Wild Turkey then secured registration of the word marks WILD GEESE and WILD GEESE WINES and it is these marks that were licensed to Mr O’Sullivan.

    The Wild Geese interests meanwhile had started selling their whiskey in Australia and wished to use the WILD GEESE mark here. Wild Turkey, on the other hand, despite selling Wild Turkey bourbon here, did not sell anything under their registered WILD GEESE and WILD GEESE WINES marks. Once the statutory three years had passed since registration of those marks, Wild Geese made its move. It sought removal of the WILD GEESE and WILD GEESE WINES marks from the Register on the grounds of non-use. (What’s good for the goose, right?)

    But the Wild Turkey interests pointed to the continued use throughout the relevant period by Mr O’Sullivan QC. Although his sales were relatively small (around $3,000-$5,000 per year), Perram J accepted that Mr O’Sullivan’s company had used the marks during the non-use period in the relevant sense.

    But did this use constitute “authorised use” within the meaning of s 8 of the TMA?

    Section 8 provides that use will only be “authorised use” to the extent that it is “under the control of the owner of the trade mark”. This required some attention to be given to the detail of the licence agreement between Mr O’Sullivan and Wild Turkey. The agreement required Mr O’Sullivan’s company to observe certain quality control measures and, if requested, to provided several bottles of his wine to Wild Turkey to allow it to conduct its own analysis. If the wine did not meet a certain defined standard, the licence agreement could be terminated by Wild Turkey.

    The agreement also placed restrictions on Mr O’Sullivan’s company in respect of where he could sell his wine and the manner in which he could use the marks.

    Despite these provisions, Justice Perram found that, in fact, Wild Turkey exercised no actual control over Mr O’Sullivan’s company’s use of the marks – except that he would have needed Wild Turkey’s permission for any export trade. His Honour considered that the licence agreement was “not intended to deliver anything but the appearance of control to the Wild Turkey interests.”

    Wild Turkey contended that the use of the marks was nevertheless under their control within the meaning of s 8. The issue for the Court was whether something less than actual control was sufficient.

    Justice Perram reviewed the statutory history of s 8 (which came into effect with the 1995 Act and replaced a provision in the 1955 Act which referred to a “connexion in trade” between the licensee and licensor rather than “control”) and the authorities under both the 1995 and 1955 legislation. On the basis of this analysis, he concluded that s 8 unambiguously requires “actual control” and that this is consistent with the position under the 1955 Act.

    However, his Honour was confronted with the Full Court’s decision in Yau’s Entertainment Pty Ltd v Asia Television Ltd (2002) 54 IPR 1. In that case, the Full Court upheld the primary judge’s decision that actual control is not required. Although Perram J respectfully dissented from the conclusions of the primary judge and the Full Court in Yau, he considered himself bound to follow it. Accordingly, he concluded (clearly reluctantly) that “for the purpose of s 8(1) a mere theoretical possibility of contractual control is sufficient to constitute authorised use”.

    For this reason, the appeal was allowed. It is rare for the primary judge’s decision to form the basis of the appellant’s submissions on appeal but this will surely be such a case.

    An interesting final point – alluded to by Justice Perram at the end of his judgment – is where Mr O’Sullivan stands in all of this. If the marks are ultimately removed for non-use, the licence agreement is worthless. Despite using the marks since 2005, and having the protection of trade mark registration through Wild Turkey since 2007, Mr O’Sullivan’s right to continued use of the mark will be in jeopardy (if not entirely lost).

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: