Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Henley Constructions Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 05 November 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] FCA 1369
• Date: 05 November 2021
• Court: Federal Court

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Henley Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1369

File number(s):	VID 1240 of 2018
Judgment of:	ANDERSON J
Date of judgment:	5 November 2021
Catchwords:	TRADE MARKS – applicant commenced trading in 1989 – applicant’s registered trade marks include HENLEY, HENLEY PROPERTIES, HENLEY WORLD OF HOMES, HENLEY ESSENCE, HENLEY RESERVE and HENLEY COLLECTION – applicant’s HENLEY and HENLEY PROPERTIES trade marks registered in 2006 – first respondent commenced trading in or around 2006 under and by reference to HENLEY CONSTRUCTIONS – applicant became aware of respondent in or around 2017 ; TRADE MARKS – whether first respondent used applicant’s relevant trade marks in the course of trade – whether first respondent’s use of relevant signs was use of a trade mark in the course of trade – whether there was substantial identity or deceptive similarity – whether first respondent used relevant signs in relation to relevant services – whether first respondent has infringed applicant’s registered marks – first respondent has infringed applicant’s registered marks pursuant to s 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ; CONSUMER LAW – ss 18, 29(1)(g) and 29(1)(h) of the Australian Consumer Law – ss 52, 53(c) and 53(d) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether first respondent contravened those provisions – relevant date for assessing applicant’s reputation – assessment of applicant’s reputation – consideration of class of public affected – whether first respondent’s conduct constituted misrepresentations – whether evidence of confusion – first respondent’s conduct in using the names “HENLEY CONSTRUCTIONS” and “HENLEY” was misleading or deceptive in contravention of relevant provisions ; TRADE MARKS – first respondent raised defence under s 122(1)(fa) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether first respondent has a right to register HENLEY CONSTRUCTIONS – whether such registration would be refused on basis of ss 58, 44(2), 42(b) or 60 of Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – first respondent did not establish defence under s 122(1)(fa) ; TRADE MARKS – first respondent raised defence under s 122(1)(a)(i) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether first respondent has used own name in good faith – first respondent’s initial use of “HENLEY CONSTRUCTIONS” and “HENLEY” was not a good faith use of Henley Constructions’ name pursuant to s 122(1)(a)(i) ; TRADE MARKS – first respondent raised defence under s 124 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – first respondent failed to establish defence ; TRADE MARKS – cross-claim – first respondent claimed applicant’s trade marks did not have relevant inherent ability to distinguish relevant services – alleged applicant’s trade marks accepted by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the basis of evidence or representations that were false in material particulars – alleged relevant non-use by applicant – assessment of applicant’s use – consideration of discretion in ss 101(3) and 101(4) of Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – cross-claims dismissed ; TRADE MARKS – ancillary liability – whether second respondent was joint tortfeasor with first respondent in its infringement of each of the applicant’s relevant marks – whether second respondent was relevantly involved in contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law or Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – second respondent was joint tortfeasor and relevantly involved ; TRADE MARKS – relief – non-pecuniary relief – consideration of injunctions and declarations
Legislation:	Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2, ss 18, 29(1)(g), 29(1)(h) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), ss 7(1), 33, 41, 42(b), 44, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 88, 62, 92, 100, 101, 102, 120, 122(1)(a)(i), 122(1)(fa), 124 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 53(c), 53(d)
Cases cited:	Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 56 Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 163 Apple v Registrar of Trade Marks [2014] FCA 1304 Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt [2012] FCAFC 8 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 634 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 130 Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd [2018] FCAFC 93 Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Limited v ACPA Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 6 Anheuser-Busch, Inc v Budejovicky Budvar, Naraodni Podnik [2002] FCA 390 Bavaria NV v Bayerischer Brauerbund EV [2009] FCA 428 Blount Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] FCA 440 Bohemia Crystal Pty Ltd v Host Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 235 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 851 Campomar Sociedad Limited v Nike International Limited (2000) 202 CLR 45 Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Ltd (1994) 120 ALR 495 Clark Equipment Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511 Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 184 Community First Credit Union Limited v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited [2019] FCA 1553 Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited v The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company [2018] FCA 1014 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan (Aust) Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 144 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 934 Flexopack S.A. Plastics Industry v Flexopack Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 235 Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58 Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd v In-N-Out Burgers, Inc [2020] FCAFC 235 Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd (2010) 240 CLR 590 In-N-Out Burgers Inc v. Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 193 Insight Radiology Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1406 Johnson & Johnson Australia Pty Limited v Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Limited (1991) 30 FCR 326 JR Consulting & Drafting Pty Ltd v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20 Mantra Group Pty Ltd v Tailly Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 29 Mars Australia Pty Ltd (formerly Effem Foods Pty Ltd) v Société des Produits Nestlé SA [2010] FCA 639 McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick [2000] FCA 1335 Monster Energy Company v Mixi Inc [2020] FCA 1398 Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestle Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 198 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1380 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 130 Oxford University Press v Registrar of Trade Marks (1990) 24 FCR 1 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 Parker-Knoll Ltd v...