Firstmac Limited v Zip Co Limited

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 29 May 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] FCA 540
• Date: 29 May 2023
• Court: Federal Court

Federal Court of Australia

Firstmac Limited v Zip Co Limited [2023] FCA 540

File number:	NSD 1004 of 2019
Judgment of:	MARKOVIC J
Date of judgment:	29 May 2023
Catchwords:	TRADE MARKS – infringement claim pursuant to s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether the infringing marks are substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the applicant’s mark – defence under s 122(1)(f) and (fa) of the Act – whether respondents would obtain registration of the infringing marks if they were to apply for it on the basis of honest concurrent use – defence under s 122(1)(a) of the Act – whether the respondents are entitled to use of the “own name” defence – whether the applicant should be denied relief by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, delay or laches – application for removal of the applicant’s mark pursuant to s 92(1) and s 92(4)(b) of the Act – whether the applicant did not during the relevant non-use period use its registered mark in good faith in relation to its services – claim under s 88(1) of the Act to rectify the Register of Trade Marks by cancelling the applicant’s mark – whether ground in s 88(2)(c) of the Act is established – whether use of the applicant’s mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion – claim under s 129 of the Act – whether the applicant’s threats to bring an action were unjustified
Legislation:	Designs Act 2003 (Cth) ss 71, 72(2)(b), 77 and 78(b) Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 44(3), 88 subs (1)(a) and subs (2)(c), 92 subs (1) and subs (4)(b), 122(1) subss (a), (f) and (fa), 129 subss (1), (2) and (4) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 16.21(1) Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) reg 8.2
Cases cited:	Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Ltd v ACPA Pty Ltd (2018) 259 FCR 514 Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovický Budvar, Národní Podnik (2002) 56 IPR 182; [2002] FCA 390 Austin, Nichols & Company Inc v Lodestar Anstalt (2012) 202 FCR 490 Autocaps (Aust) Pty Ltd v Pro-Kit Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 339; [1999] FCA 1315 Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Community First Credit Union Ltd (2021) 157 IPR 251; [2021] FCAFC 31 Bohemia Crystal Pty Ltd v Host Corporation Pty Ltd (2018) 129 IPR 482; [2018] FCA 235 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45 Community First Credit Union Ltd v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd (2019) 146 IPR 185; [2019] FCA 1553 Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Ltd v The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co (2018) 262 FCR 76 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 175 FCR 386 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 144 Electrolux Ltd v Electrix (1953) 71 RPC 23 Energy Beverages LLC v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd (2022) 165 IPR 301; [2022] FCA 113 Firstmac Ltd v Zipmoney Payments Pty Ltd [2018] ATMO 195 Flexopack SA Plastics Industry v Flexopack Australia Pty Ltd (2016) 118 IPR 239; [2016] FCA 235 Gain Capital UK Ltd v Citigroup Inc (No 4) (2017) 123 IPR 234; [2017] FCA 519 GM Global Technology Operations LLC v S.S.S. Auto Parts Pty Ltd (2019) 371 ALR 1; [2019] FCA 97 Hills Industries Ltd v Bitek Pty Ltd (2011) 214 FCR 396 Insight Radiology Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd (2016) 122 IPR 235; [2016] FCA 1406 Lodestar Anstalt v Campari America LLC (2016) 244 FCR 557 McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick (2000) 51 IPR 102; [2000] FCA 1335 New Zealand Pelt Export Co Ltd v Trade Indemnity New Zealand Ltd [2004] VSCA 163 Orr v Ford (1998) 167 CLR 316 Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd (2017) 251 FCR 379 Re Electrix Ltd’s Application [1957] RPC 369 SAP Australia Pty Ltd v Sapient Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 169; [1999] FCA 1027 Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 8 Sensis Pty Ltd v Senses Direct Mail and Fulfillment Pty Ltd (2019) 141 IPR 463; [2019] FCA 719 Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407 Solarhart Industries Pty Ltd v Solar Shop Pty Ltd (2011) 92 IPR 165; [2011] FCA 700 Stone & Wood Group Pty Ltd v Intellectual Property Development Corp Pty Ltd (2016) 120 IPR 478; [2016] FCA 820 Swancom Pty Ltd v Jazz Corner Hotel Pty Ltd (No 2) (2021) 157 IPR 498; [2021] FCA 328 Tivo Inc v Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 252 Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd v Tivo Inc (2012) 99 IPR 1; [2012] FCAFC 159 Woolworths Ltd v BP plc (No 2) (2006) 154 FCR 97
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Trade Marks
Number of paragraphs:	417
Date of hearing:	8 – 11 March 2022
Counsel for the Applicant/Cross-Respondent:	Mr RJ Webb, Mr H Bevan SC and Dr WA Rothnie
Solicitor for the Applicant/Cross-Respondent:	Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr T Bannon SC and Mr L Merrick
Solicitor for the Respondents:	King & Wood Mallesons
Solicitor for the Cross-Claimant:	Mr RJ Webb SC, Mr H Bevan SC and Dr WA Rothnie
Solicitor for the Cross-Respondent:	Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers

ORDERS

		NSD 1004 of 2019
BETWEEN:	FIRSTMAC LIMITED Applicant
AND:	ZIP CO LIMITED First Respondent ; ZIPMONEY PAYMENTS PTY LTD Second Respondent
AND BETWEEN:	ZIP CO LIMITED Cross-Claimant
AND:	FIRSTMAC LIMITED Cross-Respondent

order made by:	MARKOVIC J
DATE OF ORDER:	29 May 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parties are to confer and within seven days of the making of these Orders provide to the Associate to Markovic J proposed orders giving effect to these reasons.

2. Insofar as the parties are unable to agree to the terms of the proposed orders referred to in Order 1 above, including the appropriate order as to costs, the areas of disagreement should be set out in mark up in the draft to be provided.

3. In the event that the parties are unable to agree on the proposed orders the proceeding be listed for case management hearing on 6 June 2023 at 9.30 am AEST for argument on the form of orders.

4. The text of the reasons for judgment...