Karlsson v Griffith [2019] NSWSC 1335 - podcast episode cover

Karlsson v Griffith [2019] NSWSC 1335

Oct 25, 20195 min
--:--
--:--
Download Metacast podcast app
Listen to this episode in Metacast mobile app
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more

Episode description

A trade mark owner registered and – for a time – used a slogan.  

After it stopped using the slogan, another party sought the owner’s consent to register it as a trade mark, threatening deregistration for non-use if consent was not provided.  The owner consented.  

The other party became the new owner of the mark and the owner cancelled its own registration: [6].  

Following this – surprisingly – the new owner sued the former owner for trade mark infringement in relation to the slogan.  

A person does not infringe another’s trade mark if the person exercises a right granted by the Trade Marks Act i.e. the rights the former owner had while it was the owner: s122(1)(e) of the TMA.  

The Court found, with little difficulty, that the former owner was entitled to use the mark in the period in which it owned it: [20].  The document the new owner used to sue was struck out for being "embarrassing" in the legal sense.   

The Court made orders setting out a regime allowing the new owner to propose a new document.  In coming to its decision the Court noted the suggestion that expungement of a trade mark is not retrospective: [16].  

So, if you’re the owner of a trade mark, you’re allowed to do the things that owners do!

For the best experience, listen in Metacast app for iOS or Android