Sensis Pty Ltd v Senses Direct Mail and Fulfillment Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judge: DAVIES J
• Judgment Date: 24 May 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] FCA 719
• Court: Federal Court
• Date: 24 May 2019

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sensis Pty Ltd v Senses Direct Mail and Fulfillment Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 719

File number:	VID 779 of 2016
Judge:	DAVIES J
Date of judgment:	24 May 2019
Catchwords:	TRADE MARKS – whether respondent infringed applicant’s registered trade marks pursuant to s 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Act”) – where applicant carries on a direct marketing and data processing business – where respondent carries on a direct mail services business – whether respondent’s marks deceptively similar to applicant’s marks – relevant principles – substantial visual and aural similarity – evidence of potential and actual confusion – whether respondent used marks as a trade mark – date at which defence under s 122(1)(fa) of the Act to be assessed – whether honest concurrent use of respondent’s marks for purposes of s 44(3)(a) of the Act – whether use of respondent’s marks likely to cause confusion for purposes of s 60 of the Act due to reputation of applicant’s marks – whether s 60 subject to s 44(3) – evidence insufficient to establish reputation of applicant’s marks with respect to digital marketing services ; TRADE MARKS – cross-claim for removal of applicant’s registered trade marks for non-use – whether applicant used registered marks within non-use period – whether reasonable not to remove non-use services from registration pursuant to s 101(3) of the Act – whether removal would lead to deception or confusion – whether applicant’s services are “of the same description” as proposed excluded services – relevant factors
Legislation:	Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) Trade Marks and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd (2017) 345 ALR 205; [2017] FCAFC 56 Aldi Stores Ltd Partnership v Frito-Lay Trading Company GmbH(2001) 190 ALR 185; [2001] FCAFC 1874 Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Ltd v ACPA Pty Ltd (2018) 259 FCR 514; [2018] FCAFC 6 Anheuser-Busch, Inc v BudějovickyBudvar, Národní Podnik & Ors (2002) 56 IPR 182; [2002] FCA 390 Aristoc Ltd v Rysta Ltd [1945] AC 68 Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt (No 1) (2012) 202 FCR 490; [2012] FCAFC 8 Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F.S. Walton and Company Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641; [1937] HCA 51 BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v The National Competition Council (2007) 162 FCR 234; [2007] FCAFC 157 C A Henschke & Co v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd (2000) 52 IPR 42; [2000] FCA 1539 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; [2000] HCA 12 Coca-Cola Company v All-Fect Distributors Ltd (1999) 96 FCR 107; [1999] FCA 1721 Crazy Ron’s Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd (2004) 209 ALR 1; [2004] FCAFC 196 Dick Smith Investments Pty Ltd v Ramsey (2016) 120 IPR 270; [2016] FCA 939 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd(2010) 241 CLR 144; [2010] HCA 15 Edwards v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd (2008) 77 IPR 115; [2008] FCA 970 Flexopack SA Plastics Industry v Flexopack Australia Pty Ltd (2016) 118 IPR 239; [2016] FCA 235 Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP (2010) 185 FCR 9; [2010] FCAFC 58 Frito-Lay Trading Company GmbH v Aldi Stores Ltd Partnership (2001) 52 IPR 410; [2001] FCA 969 Hills Industries Ltd v Bitek Pty Ltd (2011) 214 FCR 396; [2011] FCA 94 Insight Radiology v Insight Clinical Imaging (2016) 122 IPR 232; [2016] FCA 1406 McCormick & Company Inc v McCormick (2000) 51 IPR 102; [2000] FCA 1335 McHattan v Australian Specialised Vehicle Systems Pty Ltd (1996) 34 IPR 537 MID Sydney Pty Ltd v Australian Tourism Co Ltd (1998) 90 FCR 236; [1998] FCA 1616 Millennium & Copthorne International Ltd v Kingsgate Hotel Group Pty Ltd (2012) 97 IPR 183; [2012] FCA 1022 Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Phillip Morris Ltd (No 2) (1984) 156 CLR 414; [1984] HCA 73 New South Wales Dairy Corporation v Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Company Ltd(1990) 171 CLR 363; [1990] HCA 60 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (No 2) (2010) 275 ALR 526; [2010] FCA 1380 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (2011) 197 FCR 67; [2011] FCAFC 130 Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd (2017) 251 FCR 379; [2017] FCAFC 83 Pioneer Computers Australia Pty Ltd v Pioneer KK (2009) 176 FCR 300; [2009] FCA 13 Pioneer Hi‑Bred Corn Co v Hy-Line Chicks Pty Ltd [1978] 2 NZLR 50; [1979] RPC 410 Polo Textile Industries Pty Ltd v Domestic Textile Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 227; [1993] FCA 265 Reckitt & Colman (Australia) Ltd v Boden (1945) 70 CLR 84; [1945] HCA 12 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths (1999) 93 FCR 365; [1999] FCA 1020 Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407; [1963] HCA 66 Southern Cross Refrigerating Company v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592; [1954] HCA 82 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd (2015) 237 FCR 388; [2015] FCAFC 156 Tivo Inc v Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 252 Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd v Tivo Inc (2012) 294 ALR 661; [2012] FCAFC 159
Date of hearing:	24-30 April 2018 and 1 May 2018
Registry:	Victoria
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Trade Marks
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	156
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr E Heerey QC with Mr S Rebikoff
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Kelly Hazell Quill Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Cobden SC with Mr R Clark and Mr W Wu
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Silberstein & Associates

ORDERS

		VID 779 of 2016
BETWEEN:	SENSIS PTY LTD (ACN 007 423 912) Applicant
AND:	SENSES DIRECT MAIL AND FULFILLMENT PTY LTD Respondent
AND BETWEEN:	SENSES DIRECT MAIL AND FULFILLMENT PTY LTD Cross-Claimant
AND:	SENSIS PTY LTD (ACN 007 423 912) Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:	DAVIES J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 May 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parties are to provide orders giving effect to these reasons by 7 June 2019.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DAVIES J:

INTRODUCTION

1 Sensis Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) carries on a direct marketing and data processing business in Australia and, by assignment from Telstra Corporation Limited, is the registered owner of the “SENSIS” trade marks (“the SENSIS marks”). The registrations include:

(a) trade mark no. 878625 for the plain word SENSIS (registered 8 June 2001) in respect of services in Class 35 that include: advertising services; marketing, merchandising, retail and wholesale distribution services (excluding...