Australian Postal Corporation (ABN 28 864 970 579) v Digital Post Australia Pty Ltd (CAN 152 998 715)

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation2013-1206 FCA H,[2013] FCAFC 153
Date2013
Year2013
CourtFull Federal Court (Australia)

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
8 cases
  • Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Henley Constructions Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 5 Noviembre 2021
    ...no intention to divert trade”, per Beach J in Flexopack at [108] citing Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 308 ALR 1; 105 IPR 1; [2013] FCAFC 153 at [73] and [74] per North, Middleton and Barker JJ. Henley Arch submits that this is a “necessary but not suf......
  • In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 26 Febrero 2020
    ...Inc v Budějovický Budvar [2002] FCA 390; (2002) 56 IPR 182 Aristoc Ltd v Rysta [1945] AC 68 Australia Postal Corporation v Digital Post [2013] FCAFC 153; (2013) 308 ALR 1 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Z......
  • Mitolo Wines Aust Pty Ltd v Vito Mitolo & Son Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 13 Junio 2019
    ...Group Pty Ltd v JBS Australia Pty Limited [2018] FCAFC 207; (2018) 363 ALR 113 Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia [2013] FCAFC 153; (2013) 308 ALR 1 Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F S Walton & Co Ltd [1937] HCA 51; (1937) 58 CLR 641 Baume & Co Ltd v A H Moore Ltd [1958] ......
  • Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 21 Abril 2023
    ...trade mark’s reputation and that there was no intention to divert trade (Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 308 ALR 1; 105 IPR 1; [2013] FCAFC 153 at [73] and [74] per North, Middleton and Barker JJ). But this is a necessary but not sufficient 659 At [109]......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • Best Australian trade mark cases of 2013-2014
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 11 Junio 2014
    ...trade marks. DIGITAL POST AUSTRALIA not deceptively similar to AUSTRALIA POST: Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia [2013] FCAFC 153 Background Australia Post was the registered owner of various marks for the words AUSTRALIA POST in respect of electronic mail, financial an......