Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Judgment Date2011
Neutral Citation2011-1017 FCA B,[2011] FCAFC 130
Date2011
Year2011
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
11 cases
  • Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Henley Constructions Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 5 November 2021
    ...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 ......
  • James Cook University v Ridd
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 22 July 2020
    ...v La Trobe University [2015] FCAFC 142; 254 IR 238 O’Brien v Komesaroff [1982] HCA 33; 150 CLR 310 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 130; 197 FCR 67 Parker v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2019] FCAFC 56; 270 FCR 39 Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd v Co......
  • PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 29 July 2021
    ...(2008) 235 CLR 619 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1380; (2010) 275 ALR 526 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 130; (2011) 197 FCR 67 Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83; (2017) 251 FCR 379 Pioneer Computers Australia Pt......
  • Goodman Fielder Pte Ltd v Conga Foods Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 17 December 2020
    ...Company Ltd [1989] FCA 124; 14 IPR 26 Nikken Wellness Pty Ltd v van Voorst [2003] FCA 816 Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Limited [2011] FCAFC 130 Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 1380 Philippart v William Whiteley Ltd (Diabolo Case) [1908] 2 Ch 274 Pioneer ......
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
  • Trade Mark Infringement - Key Cases from 2011
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 15 March 2012
    ...domain name used as a trade mark and what constitutes goods of the same description. OPTICAL 88 LTD V OPTICAL 88 PTY LTD [2010] FCA 1380 [2011] FCAFC 130 Facts – the The applicant, Optical 88 Ltd (88HK), is a Hong Kong company which operates or licenses many optical stores, primarily in Hon......
  • Same name, different companies: piggybacking off another's reputation and trade marks
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 28 October 2011
    ...of the difficulties that can be involved, following a recent Full Federal Court judgment (Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Limited [2011] FCAFC 130). Background The appellant is a Hong Kong company, which runs a well known chain of optical stores in the Asia-Pacific region under the business......