Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 11 February 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] FCAFC 8
• Date: 11 February 2021
• Court: Full Federal Court (Australia)

Federal Court of Australia

Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel [2021] FCAFC 8

Appeal from:	Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel [2020] FCA 39 Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel v Combe International Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 730
File number:	NSD 226 of 2020
Judgment of:	MCKERRACHER, GLEESON AND BURLEY JJ
Date of judgment:	11 February 2021
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal to the Full Court from judgment of single judge pursuant to s 195(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – leave granted ; TRADE MARKS – opposition proceeding – s 44 ground of opposition – whether mark deceptively similar to prior registered marks – descriptive components and “idea” of trade mark
Legislation:	Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 10, s 14, s 20, s 42(b), s 44, s 52, s 56, s 57, s 59, s 60, s 62A, s 195(2)
Cases cited:	Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd [2018] FCAFC 93; 261 FCR 301 Aristoc Ltd v Rysta Ltd [1945] AC 68; 62 RPC 65 at 84 Australian Meat Group Pty Ltd v JBS Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 207; 268 FCR 623 Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F.S. Walton & Co Ltd [1937] HCA 51; 58 CLR 641 Bauer Consumer Media Ltd v Evergreen Television Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 71; 367 ALR 393 Berlei Hestia Industries Ltd v The Bali Company Inc [1973] HCA 43; 129 CLR 353 Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49; 94 ALJR 112 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833; 117 FCR 424 Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited [2014] HCA 48; 254 CLR 337 Christian v Société Des Produits Nestlé SA (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 153; 327 ALR 630 Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co KG Arzneimittel [2017] ATMO 110 Cooper Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd [1952] HCA 15; 86 CLR 536 Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 196; 209 ALR 1 Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel v Combe International Ltd [2020] FCA 39 Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel v Combe International Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 730 Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd v In-N-Out Burgers, Inc [2020] FCAFC 235 Homart Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Careline Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 105; 264 FCR 422 In the Matter of an Application by the Pianotist Company Ltd. for the Registration of a Trade Mark (1906) 23 RPC 774 Jafferjee v Scarlett [1937] HCA 36; 57 CLR 115 Kuru v State of New South Wales [2008] HCA 26; (2008) 236 CLR 1 MID Sydney Pty Ltd v Australian Tourism Co Ltd [1998] FCA 1616; 90 FCR 236 Mond Staffordshire Refining Co Ltd v Harlem [1929] HCA 6; 41 CLR 475 New South Wales Dairy Corporation v Murray Goulburn Co‑operative Company Ltd [1989] FCA 124; 86 ALR 549 Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83; 251 FCR 379 Re Broadhead’s Application (1950) 67 RPC 209 Re Johnson and Johnson v Kalnin [1993] FCA 279; 114 ALR 215 Reckitt & Colman(Australia) Ltd v Boden [1945] HCA 12; 70 CLR 84 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd [1999] FCA 1020; 93 FCR 365 Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd [1963] HCA 66; 109 CLR 407 Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 82; 91 CLR 592 Sports Café Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] FCA 1614; 42 IPR 552 Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156; 237 FCR 388 Verrocchi v Direct Chemist Outlet Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 104; 247 FCR 570 ; Macquarie Dictionary Online (Macmillan Publishers Australia, 2021) Messrs Burrell R and Handler M, the learned authors of Australian Trade Mark Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2016)
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Trade Marks
Number of paragraphs:	86
Date of hearing:	28 August 2020
Counsel for the Appellant:	E Heerey QC and F St John
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Ashurst Australia
Counsel for the Respondent:	JM Beaumont and GR Rubagotti
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Thomson Geer

ORDERS

		NSD 226 of 2020
BETWEEN:	COMBE INTERNATIONAL LTD Appellant
AND:	DR AUGUST WOLFF GMBH & CO KG ARZNEIMITTEL Respondent

order made by:	MCKERRACHER, GLEESON AND BURLEY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	11 February 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal under s 195(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) be allowed.

2. The appeal be allowed.

3. Orders 1, 2 and 4 of the Orders made by the primary judge on 18 February 2020 be set aside.

4. Orders 1, 2 and 3 of the Orders made by the primary judge made on 29 May 2020 be set aside.

5. Australian Trade Mark Application No 1701217 be refused registration.

6. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the primary proceeding.

7. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1 INTRODUCTION	[1]
2 BACKGROUND TO APPLICATION AND APPEAL	[3]
3 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE	[8]
4 SECTION 44 (DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TRADE MARK)	[17]
4.1 Deceptive similarity	[25]
4.2 Primary judge’s reasons	[34]
4.3 Combe’s submissions	[52]
4.4 Dr Wolff’s submissions	[60]
4.5 Consideration	[65]
5 SECTION 60 (USE OF TRADE MARK LIKELY TO CAUSE CONFUSION)	[84]
6 DISPOSITION	[85]

1. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a single judge of this Court, allowing an appeal by the respondent (Dr Wolff) from a decision of the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (Act): Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel v Combe International Ltd [2020] FCA 39. Leave is required pursuant to s 195(2) of the Act.

2. The application for leave and the appeal were heard together. The applicant/appellant (Combe) is the owner of various marks consisting of or including the word VAGISIL. It contends that the primary judge erred by finding that Combe’s s 44 and s 60 grounds of opposition to Dr Wolff’s application for registration of the trademark VAGISAN were not made out.

2. BACKGROUND TO APPLICATION AND APPEAL

3. The following facts, set out in the primary judge’s reasons at [15]-[20], are not in dispute:

[15] Dr Wolff is a German pharmaceutical company that was founded in 1905. It supplies medicinal, cosmetic and dermatological products in and outside Europe.

[16] Among Dr Wolff’s products are those offered for sale and sold under...