PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] FCAFC 128 |
| Date | 29 July 2021 |
| Court | Full Federal Court (Australia) |
PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128
|
Appeal from: |
|
|
|
|
|
File number: |
NSD 1014 of 2020 |
|
|
|
|
Judgment of: |
JAGOT, NICHOLAS AND BURLEY JJ |
|
|
|
|
Date of judgment: |
29 July 2021 |
|
|
|
|
Catchwords: |
TRADE MARKS – infringement – whether Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) imposes liability for authorising infringement of a registered trade mark – no liability for authorising infringement TRADE MARKS – deceptive similarity – whether primary judge erred in evaluating deceptive similarity between trade marks – where primary judge considered circumstances of sale of goods bearing registered marks in deciding whether consumers would be caused to wonder whether alleged infringing goods emanated from the same source – whether error material – appeal against infringement findings dismissed TRADE MARKS – non-use applications – whether primary judge erred in removing trade marks from register with respect to certain goods for non-use – appeal allowed in part COMPETITION – misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of Australian Consumer Law – whether consumers would be misled or deceived by respondent’s conduct – whether primary judge erred in assessing reputation of appellants at the time of the impugned conduct – appeal dismissed TORTS – passing off – where appellants conceded that failure with respect to claims under Australian Consumer Law would lead to failure to establish passing off – appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
|
Legislation: |
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 15AA and 15AB Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2) ss 18 and 29 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 36 and 101 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 13 Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 17, 20, 27, 41, 44, 59, 60, 88, 92, 100, 101, 120, 122, 122A, 123 and 124 Trade Marks Bill 1995 (Cth) |
|
|
|
|
Cases cited: |
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27 Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd [2018] FCAFC 93; (2018) 261 FCR 301 Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50; (2013) 253 CLR 284 Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Vidtech Gaming Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 275; (2006) 68 IPR 229 Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Company [1960] HCA 47; (1960) 103 CLR 391 Austin Nichols & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt [2012] FCAFC 8; (2012) 202 FCR 490 Australian Meat Group Pty Ltd v JBS Australia Pty Limited [2018] FCAFC 207; (2018) 268 FCR 623 Australian Woollen Mills Limited v FS Walton and Company Limited [1937] HCA 51; (1937) 58 CLR 641 Bavaria NV v Bayerischer Brauerbund eV [2009] FCA 428; (2009) 177 FCR 300 Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49; (2019) 94 ALJR 112 Bohemia Crystal Pty Ltd v Host Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 235; (2018) 354 ALR 353 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833; (2001) 117 FCR 424 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v F H Faulding & Co Limited [2000] FCA 316; (2000) 97 FCR 524 C A Henschke & Co v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1539; (2000) 52 IPR 42 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd [2000] HCA 12; (2000) 202 CLR 45 Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Ltd [1994] FCA 68; (1994) 120 ALR 495 Christian v Société Des Produits Nestlé SA (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 153; (2015) 327 ALR 630 Colorado Group Limited v Strandbags Group Pty Limited [2007] FCAFC 184; (2007) 164 FCR 506 Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel [2021] FCAFC 8; (2021) 157 IPR 230 Crazy Ron’s Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 196; (2004) 209 ALR 1 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2008] FCA 934; (2008) 77 IPR 69 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 15; (2010) 241 CLR 144 Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58; (2010) 185 FCR 9 Goodman Fielder Pte Ltd v Conga Foods Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1808; (2020) 158 IPR 9 Grain Pool of Western Australia v The Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14; (2002) 202 CLR 479 Habib Bank Ltd v Habib Bank AG Zurich [1981] 1 WLR 1265 Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd v In-N-Out Burgers, Inc [2020] FCAFC 235; (2020) 385 ALR 514 Hermes Trade Mark [1982] RPC 425 Homart Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Careline Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 105; (2018) 264 FCR 422 House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 In the matter of London Lubricants (1920) Limited’s Application (1925) 42 RPC 264 JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 43; (2012) 250 CLR 1 Lodestar v Anstalt v Campari America LLC [2016] FCAFC 92; (2016) 244 FCR 557 Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Toea Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1443; (2006) 156 FCR 158 Marengo v Daily Sketch and Daily Graphic Ltd [1992] FSR 1 New South Wales Dairy Corporation v Murray Goulburn Co-operative Company Ltd [1989] FCA 124; (1989) 86 ALR 549 Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd [1997] HCA 53; (1997) 191 CLR 85 Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 11; (2006) 228 CLR 529 Northern Territory of Australia v Collins [2008] HCA 49; (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 Pty Ltd v Pioneer KK [2009] FCA 135; (2009) 176 FCR 300 Pioneer Kabushiki Kaisha v Registrar of Trade Marks [1977] HCA 56; (1977) 137 CLR 670 Playgro Pty Ltd v Playgo Art & Craft Manufactory Ltd [2016] FCA 280; (2016) 335 ALR 144 Polo Textile Industries Pty Ltd v Domestic Textile Corporation Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 265; (1993) 42 FCR 227 Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Young [1999] NSWCCA 166; (1999) 46 NSWLR 681 S & I Publishing Pty Ltd v Australian Surf Life Saver Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 1463; (1998) 88 FCR 354 Scandinavian Tobacco Group Eersel BV v Trojan Trading Company Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 91; (2016) 243 FCR 152 Secretary, Department of Health & Ageing v Nguyen [2002] FCAFC 416; (2002) 124 FCR 425 Sensis Pty Ltd v Senses Direct Mail and Fulfillment Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 719; (2019) 141 IPR 463 Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd [1963] HCA 66; (1963) 109 CLR 407 Southcorp Brands Pty Ltd v Rush Rich Winery Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 720; (2019) 369 ALR 299 Taco Co of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 170; (1982) 42 ALR 177 Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156; (2015) 237 FCR 388 Thai World Import & Export Co Ltd v Shuey Shing Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 735; (1989) 17 IPR 289 Unilever Australia Limited v PB Foods Ltd [2000] FCA 798 University of New South Wales v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26; (1975) 133 CLR 1 Verrocchi v Direct Chemist Outlet Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 104; (2016) 247 FCR 570 Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd v Tivo Inc [2012] FCAFC 159; (2012) 294 ALR 661 R Burrell and M Handler, Australian Trade Mark Law (2nd ed, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2016) |
|
|
|
|
Division: |
General Division |
|
|
|
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Henkel Australia Pty Ltd
...(2006) 70 IPR 293; [2006] FCA 1431 Parfums Christian Dior (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dimmey’s Stores Pty Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 349; [1997] FCA 1232 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128 Plimpton v Spiller [1876] 4 Ch D 286 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999......
-
Seven Network (Operations) Limited v 7-Eleven Inc
...Nissan Motor Company v Nissan Computer Corporation 378 F (3d) 1002 (9th Cir, 2004) PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128; 285 FCR 598 Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 8 Sensis Pty Ltd v Senses Direct Mail and Fulfillment Pty......
-
Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd
...272 ALR 487 P B Foods Ltd v Malanda Dairy Foods Ltd [1999] FCA 1602; (1999) 47 IPR 47 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128 Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imagin Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83; (2017) 251 FCR 379 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd [1999......
-
Freshfood Holdings Pte Limited v Pablo Enterprise Pte Limited (No 2)
...Enterprise Pte Ltd v Freshfood Holdings Pte Ltd [2020] ATMO 195 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd (2021) 391 ALR 608; [2021] FCAFC 128 Rael Marcus v Sabra International Pty Ltd (1995) 30 IPR 261; [1995] FCA 35 Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 158 Sen......
-
Tripping over the doormat: Basic threshold issues to get right in trade mark litigation
...247. 2 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1078 at [330]. 3 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your s......
-
Tripping over the doormat: Basic threshold issues to get right in trade mark litigation
...247. 2 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1078 at [330]. 3 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your s......
-
Wicked v Wicked Sister - Full Court confirms no statutory infringement by a party that has not used but has authorised use of a trade mark
...recent decision of PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128 (29 July 2021), the Full Federal Court confirmed that a trade mark owner who merely authorises use of its trade mark cannot be subject to liability for direct trade mark infringement pursuant to s120(1) o......
-
Wicked v Wicked Sister - Full Court confirms no statutory infringement by a party that has not used but has authorised use of a trade mark
...recent decision of PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128 (29 July 2021), the Full Federal Court confirmed that a trade mark owner who merely authorises use of its trade mark cannot be subject to liability for direct trade mark infringement pursuant to s120(1) o......