Flinders Journal of Law Reform
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Flinders Journal of Law Reform |
|
WILL TAYLOR[†]
This paper considers a vexed issue and one be-devilling parts of the Australian wine industry at the moment — that is, the conflict between pre-existing trade marks and geographical indications (GI’s) registered or proposed to be registered under the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 (‘AWBCA’).
I will discuss this topic under these headings:
• Why are we creating registered GI’s (to put this whole issue into context)?
• Where have we got to so far with this GI creation process?
• The GI/trade mark overlap issue.
• The solution.
• What still has to be done to implement the solution.
There are two reasons for this:
• first of all, we are bound to introduce some sort of geographical indications regime because the Australia/EU Wine Agreement (article 6) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (article 23) both require Australia to ‘provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent use of a . . . geographical indication identifying wines for wines not originating in the place indicated by the geographical indication in question’. Hence, the introduction of Part VIB of the AWBCA in 1993 for the purpose of enabling Australia to fulfil its obligations under the Australia/EU Wine Agreement and for certain other purposes.
• the second reason for creating registered GI’s is a commercial one: that is, to enhance our ability to market our wines to the rest of the world. The diversity of Australia’s wine regions is a major advantage we have over some of our competitors. We do not just have ‘Australian wine’ to sell to the world. Like the French, who have Bordeaux, Burgundy, Champagne, Alsace, the Rhone Valley, etc, we have Barossa, Margaret River, Hunter Valley, Yarra Valley, the Riverland and so on. The marketing balance we have to achieve, and at which I think we are doing quite well at the moment, is to promote brand Australia on the one hand but, within that, promote the regions of Australia that all have their own special attributes that make them so interesting and exciting.
We have to demonstrate to the world that there is no such thing as the generic ‘Australian wine’ because it is so different when it comes from distinct places in this vast continent.
Compare Clare Valley and Eden Valley Riesling, for example: two of the world’s great wine styles from two different regions that are quite close to each other but totally different wines. Therefore, when an Englishman talks about Australian Riesling, that is a nonsense. What the world needs to talk about, and what we need to educate them to talk about, is Clare Valley Riesling or Eden Valley Riesling or Tasmanian Riesling for that matter. Just as they compare great Bordeaux from Pauillac and Margaux, they should compare great Cabernet blends from Coonawarra and Margaret River — they should not compare Bordeaux with ‘Australian Cabernet’.
Therefore, the wine regions of Australia need to be encouraged to promote themselves to the world and that is happening in a significant and successful way. But their efforts will be undermined if the integrity of their GI claims on their labels is called into question. If foreigners do not believe that Coldstream Hills’ wine is from Yarra Valley, even though it has Yarra Valley on the label, that is obviously a serious impediment to the promotion by the Yarra Valley winemakers of their region. So we need a GI regime with statutory force that makes people tell the truth about their wine’s origin. That is what Part VIB of the AWBCA and accompanying regulations seek to do. They are supported by the label integrity program provided for in Part VIA of the Act.
You might gather from this introduction that I am a strong supporter of the GI regime and the Geographical Indications Committee (GIC). That is despite the fact that my firm has, to date, acted for a number of trade mark holders who have been potentially prejudiced by the process. Neither I, my firm, nor our clients in those matters are opposed to the regime; on the contrary, we and they are supporters of it, provided that the rights of trade mark holders are respected in the creation of Australia’s registered GIs.
As I have already mentioned, we have had the GI provisions in the AWBCA since December 1993 and the GIC has been busy processing applications and determining GI’s since then. I think the GIC should be commended for making substantial progress in that time frame. As at 1 October 1998, it had registered 28 zones (plus the eight States/Territories), 18 regions and two sub-regions. Annexure A to this paper sets out the registered GI’s that we now have in this country and, in italic print, the GI’s forecast by the GIC to be registered by 30 June 1999.
The GIC has had relatively few disputes to deal with, certainly far less than I would have expected. It has had the well publicised boundary dispute at Coonawarra, which is yet to be resolved; a problem in the south-west of Western Australia which has now been resolved with the proposed creation of two regions, Pemberton and Warren Valley; a problem with whether Kuitpo would be in the Adelaide Hills or McLaren Vale and it ended up being in the Adelaide Hills; a problem with Barossa which it resolved by creating a Barossa zone and regions within it called Barossa Valley and Eden Valley; and another problem which it resolved by creating a super zone of Adelaide above the zones Mt Lofty Ranges, Fleurieu and Barossa. Then it had various trade mark problems with Koppamurra and some others that are still continuing. However, generally the process has gone as smoothly as I think could be expected and the GIC has made a lot of progress, which is a credit to its members.
A significant problem arose early in the piece, which is yet to be resolved, because the GI provisions of the AWBCA do not sit at all comfortably with trade mark law. When I say ‘trade mark law’, I am referring to the Trade Marks Act 1995 (‘TMA’), the Trade Practices Act 1974 (‘TPA’), the law of passing off and the law generally applicable to trade marks, whether registered or unregistered. This issue of the interface between the GI regime and trade mark law is an extremely complex one, involving questions of international and constitutional law, as well as trade mark law, which I do not propose to cover in detail in this paper; rather, I will endeavour to ‘give you a feel’ for the nature of the problems and make some comments on them.
I should say, of course, that there often is not a problem in GI/trade mark overlap situations because the trade mark holder is quite happy that the region is promoted under a name that corresponds with its brand name. It may, in fact, be thrilled by all the free publicity it is going to receive from the regional promotion. But, on the other hand, a number of trade mark holders have been very unhappy about what they perceive to be the usurping of their intellectual property.
The problem for a trade mark holder if a GI is registered that is the same as or similar to brand name incorporated in its pre-existing trade mark is threefold.
If a GI is registered, that is the same as or similar to a brand name incorporated in a pre-existing trade mark, the trade mark holder’s rights will be restricted in that the holder will no longer be able to source fruit, to any significant extent, from outside the area of the GI for sale under that brand name. Under the so called ‘blending rules’ in the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (AWBC) Regulations (specifically Regulation 21), you can only state a GI on your label if at least 85% of the fruit comes from the area in respect of which the GI is registered. The registration of a GI in these circumstances detracts from the rights of the pre-existing trade mark holder to use the trade mark.
To illustrate this point and so as not to ‘tread on any toes’, I will use a hypothetical example of a company called Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd that labels its wine with the brand Blue Sky. Assume that Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd comes from a place called Blue Skies. Prior to the registration of the GI, Blue Skies, Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd could use any fruit under its label. Once Blue Skies is registered as a GI, however, it has to have at least 85% Blue Skies fruit in the bottle behind the label. Blue Skies is a premium grape growing area and, at the stroke of the GIC’s pen, the cost of production of Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd’s wine increases substantially, as does the flexibility of the winemaker to create interesting, multi-regional blends under this label. Clearly, the producer’s right to use this trade mark is prejudiced.
The practical result of the registration of a GI, that is identical or similar to a brand name incorporated in a trade mark, is likely to be a loss of distinctiveness of the brand. If Blue Skies was registered as a GI:
• the other producers in the region, Blue Skies, would be encouraged to vigorously promote the area as one that produces premium wines, leading to the name becoming distinctive of the area rather than the Blue Sky brand; and
• the other producers would be encouraged to highlight the GI, Blue Skies, on their packaging and advertising, further detracting from the distinctiveness of the brand, Blue Sky, and leading to confusion of consumers.
Therefore, the wine producer, Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd, may be powerless to prevent the destruction of its brand.
The result of the loss of distinctiveness I have just referred to may be that a trade mark in the position of Blue Sky could become deceptive or confusing over time and, therefore, liable to removal or amendment under the rectification provisions of the TMA. I will explain that in more detail.
Under s 22(1)(b) of the former Trade Marks Act 1955, the court could order rectification of the register ‘by the expunging or amendment of an entry wrongly . . . remaining in the Register’. The courts have interpreted this provision by reference to, in particular, ss 28, 60 and 61 of that Act. It seems clear, from a literal reading of the old Act and from the case law, that the registration of a mark was liable to be expunged or amended if, due to events occurring post-registration, it became deceptive or confusing. However, although the matter does not appear to have been finally settled by the courts, the law under that Act seemed to be that ‘blameworthy conduct’ of the holder of the mark was required before rectification would be granted. Rectification was discretionary and what constituted ‘blameworthy conduct’ was an issue in itself.
Under s 88(1)(b) of the TMA, a trade mark wrongly remaining in the register can be removed or amended on grounds including (through s 88(2)(a), Division 2 of Part 5 and Division 2 of Part 4 or s 88(2)(c)) if:
• the mark is not capable of distinguishing the holder’s goods or services from the goods or services of other persons;
• because of some connotation that the trade mark or a sign contained in the trade mark has, the use of the trade mark will be likely to deceive or cause confusion; or
• the mark is otherwise likely to deceive or cause confusion because of circumstances applying at the time the application for rectification is filed.
Sections 89(1)(b) and (c) say that a court may decide not to grant an application for rectification, on the ground that the mark is liable to deceive or confuse, if the registered owner of the mark satisfies the court that the ground has not arisen through the act or fault of the registered owner. Therefore, s 89 clearly recognises that the registration of a mark can be rectified due to post-registration events, but it allows the court a discretion to not rectify if the registered owner has not been at fault and can prove it.
The 1995 Act would, therefore, appear to have changed the position from that prevailing under the 1955 Act. Under the 1995 Act, a court may order rectification of a mark even if there has not been ‘blameworthy conduct’ on the part of the registered owner; under the 1955 Act (and associated case law), a court could not order rectification unless there had been such ‘blameworthy conduct’.
If we return to the position of Blue Sky then, as mentioned earlier, if the GI, Blue Skies, is registered:
• the name will become distinctive of the area of the GI, Blue Skies, due to the regional promotion that will result from the registration of the GI, which will detract from the distinctiveness of the Blue Sky brand; and
• a number of competing products will appear in the market place with Blue Skies highlighted on their packaging, which may lead to the deception or confusion of consumers (who include many people who are not wine connoisseurs).
If those results occur, the pre-existing registered trade mark may be subject to rectification in the discretion of the court under ss 88 and 89 of the TMA.
It is for these reasons that the GIC may not be entitled to register a GI that overlaps with a brand name incorporated in a pre-existing trademark. Article 24.5 of TRIPS states that measures adopted by a member country (such as Australia) to implement s 3 of Part II of TRIPS (which provides for the introduction of a geographical indications regime) shall not prejudice the validity of the registration of a trade mark, or the right to use a trade mark, on the basis that such a trade mark is identical with, or similar to, a geographical indication. Arguably, an action of the GIC to register a GI in these circumstances is a ‘measure adopted to implement’ s 3 of Part II of TRIPS. That is despite the fact that Part VIB of the AWBCA may have been introduced for the purpose of enabling Australia to fulfil its obligations under the Australia/EU Wine Agreement. That does not preclude the GIC’s actions from also being measures adopted to implement an aspect of TRIPS.
Furthermore, there is also the possibility of the removal of certain rights of pre-existing trade mark holders by the registration of GIs being an acquisition of property, unjust on terms, contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution.
That is looking at the matter from the point of view of the trade mark holder. The failure of the GI provisions and trade mark law to interact in a positive way is, of course, also a substantial problem for producers in various regions who want to use a particular name for their region but it is the subject of a pre-existing trade mark. The other producers in the Blue Skies area, for example, may think that there is great marketing potential in a viticultural region of that name.
The obvious problem that the producers have is that the GIC, for the reasons mentioned above, may be unable to register the GI in these circumstances, even if it wants to.
But, even if the GIC did register the GI, that would not necessarily allow the other producers in Blue Skies to use the GI. It would not preclude the operation of trade mark law remedies available to the holder of the Blue Sky mark. For example:
Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd will still have its rights under ss 20(2) and 120 of the TMA, if its registered trade mark is infringed: that is, if another producer uses as a trade mark a sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, its own trade mark, Blue Sky, in relation to wine.
However, under s 122(1)(b)(i), a person will not infringe the mark if the person uses the sign in good faith to indicate the geographical origin of goods. Therefore, if Blue Skies is actually the name of a place and it is used by the alleged infringer in good faith to indicate the geographical origin of its wine, then the TMA may not be infringed. The fact that Blue Skies is registered as a GI would, I expect, lend weight to an argument that it is a place and that the person using it is indicating the geographical origin of its wine. On the other hand, if the name was emblazoned all over the bottle in huge letters, it might appear that it is being used as a brand name, rather than as a good faith indicator of geographical origin.
The registration of a GI will not, of course, prevent the holder of a trade mark including a brand name similar to the GI, from suing for passing off or under s 52 of the TPA. BLue Sky Wines Pty Ltd may allege that another producer putting Blue Skies on its label passed off its wine as wine produced by Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd and mislead and deceived the public in that regard. Theoretically, at least, those allegations could be substantiated.
I would expect the case of Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd to be weaker in circumstances in which Blue Skies had been registered as a GI, but it may still succeed depending upon the circumstances. Particularly if Blue Sky is a well known brand and there is little reputation in Blue Skies as a region, consumers may think that they are buying Blue Sky when they buy wine from other producers in Blue Skies.
This very situation arose recently in proceedings brought by Jeffrey Sher of Port Phillip Estate against Donlevy Fitzpatrick. Donlevy Fitzpatrick put Port Phillip on his label as a GI claim. Despite the fact that Port Phillip was a registered GI and the fruit actually came from Port Phillip, he was still sued for passing off and misleading and deceptive conduct. The matter was settled and there is no judgment. However, this case does serve to highlight the fact that most winemakers may not appreciate that you cannot necessarily use a registered GI without having regard to trade mark law.
So what is the solution to these problems? I am afraid that there is no perfect answer, but a relatively good solution has been formulated that enables the GI registration process to proceed in circumstances in which there is a GI/trade mark overlap whilst still respecting the rights of pre-existing trade mark holders.
It resulted from a meeting in August 1996 between the Australian Intellectual Property Organization (as it was then called), the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE), the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia Inc, the Wine Grape Growers’ Council of Australia Inc, the GIC and various other interested persons. The approach the meeting developed is basically as follows by reference to my earlier example:
• if Blue Sky is a registered trade mark, which gives Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd exclusive use of the name (for example, if there is no disclaimer on its use of the name), if Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd does not consent to the registration of BLue Skies, Blue Skies will not be determined as a GI;
• if Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd consents to the GI registration, the GIC will have a discretion whether or not to register Blue Skies or register it on conditions;
• if the registered trade mark does not give Blue Sky Wines Pty Ltd exclusive use of the name Blue Sky, the GIC will have a discretion whether or not to register Blue Skies as a GI or register it on conditions; and
• if Blue Sky is an unregistered trade mark the GIC will have a discretion whether or not to register Blue Skies as a GI or register it on conditions.
The meeting also agreed that clearer guidelines for the GIC in exercising its discretion, should be inserted in the AWBC Regulations. Since the meeting a draft revised version of Regulation 25 has been settled and is set out in Annexure B to this paper.
The AIDV (Australasian Chapter) has had considerable input into this debate: the August 1996 meeting that I referred to and the drafting of the new Regulation 25.
The answer is ‘a lot’. Although the GIC is now, and has been for some time, operating in accordance with this agreed approach, it is not yet enshrined in law. The following matters still need to be attended to:
• DPIE is to prepare amendments to the AWBCA to implement the scheme, which then need to be enacted.
• The revised Regulation 25, to give better guidance to the GIC when it has to exercise its discretion in GI/trade mark overlap situations, needs to be approved by the Parliamentary draftsman and made and gazetted.
• A new sub-regulation 13(4) needs to be made and gazetted to exempt pre-existing registered trade mark holders from the fruit sourcing restrictions they would otherwise have to comply with if a name included in their trade mark was registered as a GI. The GI sub-committee of the Australasian Chapter of the AIDV settled a new regulation with the GIC some time ago and a copy of it is set out in Annexure C to this paper.
• Section 89 needs to be reviewed, as part of the current overall review of the TMA, and then amended so that a court may not grant an application for rectification of a trade mark, where the ground relied upon by the applicant has arisen as a direct or indirect practical result of the registration of a GI that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a brand name incorporated in the trade mark.
It follows that there is still much to be done to implement this scheme and, of course, the process stalled with the Federal election having been held recently. Now that the election is over I hope that progress can be made to implement this scheme which, for the reasons I mentioned at the start of this paper, I consider to be very important for the Australian wine industry. The sooner that these issues are properly dealt with, the better for all the producers in the regions that are affected by these trade mark/GI overlap issues.
|
ZONE
|
REGION
|
SUB-REGION
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Eastern Australia
|
|
|
|
New South Wales
|
|
|
|
Big Rivers
|
Swan Hill
|
|
|
|
Murray Darling
|
|
|
|
Riverina
|
|
|
|
Perricoota
|
|
|
|
Lachlan Valley
|
|
|
Central Ranges
|
Orange |
|
|
|
Cowra
|
|
|
|
Mudgee
|
|
|
Hunter Valley
|
Hunter
|
Broke Fordwich
|
|
|
|
Pokolbin
|
|
Northern Rivers
|
Hastings River
|
|
|
Northern Slopes
|
|
|
|
South Coast
|
Sydney
|
|
|
Southern New South
|
Canberra District
|
|
|
Wales
|
Hilltops
|
|
|
|
Tumbarumba
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Plains
|
|
|
|
Victoria
|
Goulburn Valley
|
Nagambie Lakes
|
|
Central Victoria
|
Central Victorian
|
|
|
|
Mountain Country
|
|
|
|
Bendigo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gippsland
|
Rutherglen
|
|
|
North East Victoria
|
King Valley
|
Whitlands
|
|
|
|
Myrrhee
|
|
|
Mount Buffalo/
|
|
|
|
Victorian Alps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZONE
|
REGION
|
SUB-REGION
|
|
|
|
|
|
North East Victoria
|
Glenrowan
|
|
|
|
Beechworth
|
|
|
North West Victoria
|
Swan Hill
|
|
|
|
Murray Darling
|
|
|
Port Phillip
|
Geelong
|
|
|
|
Yarra Valley
|
|
|
|
Mornington Peninsula
|
|
|
|
Sunbury
|
|
|
|
Macedon Ranges
|
|
|
Western Victoria
|
Grampians
|
|
|
|
Pyrenees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Victoria
|
Henty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Australia
|
|
|
|
Adelaide (Super Zone,
|
|
|
|
above Mount Lofty Ranges,
|
|
|
|
Fleurieu and Barossa)
|
Adelaide Hills
|
Lenswood
|
|
Mount Lofty Ranges
|
|
Piccadilly Valley
|
|
|
Clare Valley
|
|
|
|
McLaren Vale
|
Clarendon
|
|
Fleurieu
|
Larighorne Creek
|
|
|
|
Southern Fleurieu
|
|
|
|
Mount Benson
|
|
|
Limestone Coast
|
Coonawarra
|
|
|
|
Padthaway
|
|
|
The Peninsulas
|
Riverland
|
|
|
Lower Murray
|
|
|
|
Far North
|
Barossa Valley
|
|
|
Barossa
|
Eden Valley
|
Springton
|
|
|
|
High Eden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Australia
|
|
|
|
Eastern Plains, Inland and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZONE
|
REGION
|
SUB-REGION
|
|
|
|
|
|
North of Western
|
Esperance
|
|
|
Australia
|
Margaret River
|
|
|
West Australian South
|
Great Southern
|
Mount Barker
|
|
East Coastal
|
|
Albany
|
|
South West Australia
|
|
Denmark
|
|
|
|
Frankland River
|
|
|
|
Porongurup
|
|
|
Pemberton
|
|
|
|
Warren Valley
|
|
|
|
Blackwood Valley
|
|
|
|
Geographe
|
|
|
|
Perth Hills
|
|
|
|
Swan District
|
Swan Valley
|
|
|
Burnett Valley
|
|
|
Central Western
|
Granite Belt
|
|
|
Australia
|
|
|
|
Greater Perth
|
|
|
|
Queensland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tasmania
|
|
|
|
Australian Capital
|
|
|
|
Territory
|
|
|
|
Northern Territory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Names in italic print have not yet been registered.
25 (1) For the purposes of sub-s 40T(2) of the Act, the Committee is to have regard to the following criteria:
(a) . . .
(h) [to contain what is currently paragraph (i)]
(i) if there exists, in relation to the area, a word or expression to indicate the area and that word or expression is not included in a registered or unregistered trade mark that is included in the description and presentation of wine:
(i) any history relating to the word or expression;
(ii) whether, and to what extent, the word or expression is known to wine retailers beyond the boundaries of the area;
(iii) whether, and to what extent, the word or expression has been traditionally used in the area or elsewhere; and
(iv) the appropriateness of the word or expression;
(j) if there exists, in relation to the area, a word or expression to indicate the area and that word or expression is included in a registered or unregistered trade mark that is included in the description and presentation of wine:
(i) if the trade mark is registered in the Register of Trade Marks in respect of goods in class 33:
(A) whether the Committee has received a statement from the Registrar of Trade Marks as to whether, in the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks, the trade mark gives its owner exclusive rights to the use of that word or expression; and
(B) if so, whether the Committee has received a written consent from the owner of that trade mark to a determination being made by the Committee, under s 4OT of the Act, that the word or expression should be used to indicate the area;
(ii) if the trade mark is not registered in the Register of Trade Marks in respect of goods in class 33:
(A) whether, in the view of the Committee, the trade mark gives its owner exclusive rights to the use of that word or expression; and
(B) if so, whether the Committee has received a written consent from the owner of that trade mark to a determination being made by the Committee, under s 4OT of the Act, that the word or expression should be used to indicate the area;
(iii) the reputation of the area, as encapsulated in the word or expression;
(iv) the reputation of the trade mark for the description and presentation of wine;
(v) the length of time during which the word or expression has been used to indicate the area and the extent to which, and manner in which, it has been used in that way during that time;
(vi) the length of time during which the trade mark has been used for the description and presentation of wine and the extent to which, and manner in which, it has been used in that way during that time;
(vii) whether, and to what extent, the reputation of the trade mark, for the description and presentation of wine, assisted in the development of the reputation of the area as encapsulated in the word or expression;
(viii) whether, and to what extent, the reputation of the area, as encapsulated in the word or expression, assisted in the development of the reputation of trade mark for the description and presentation of wine;
(ix) whether, and to what extent, the word or expression has been used by persons, other than the trade mark owner, in the description and presentation of wine;
(x) whether, and to what extent, the word or expression has been used in the description and presentation of products other than wine;
(xi) whether, and to what extent, the word or expression has been used to indicate an area other than the area in question;
(xii) to the extent that they have not already been covered in the above paragraphs, the matters referred to in paragraph (i) in relation to the word or expression;
(xiii) whether, and to what extent, wine with a description and presentation that includes the word or expression has originated in the area;
(xiv) whether, and to what extent, the trade mark owner is likely to be prejudiced if the Committee determines, under s 4OT of the Act, that the word or expression should be used to indicate the area; and
(xv) whether, and to what extent, persons, other than the trade mark owner, who have used the word or expression in the description and presentation of wine, are likely to be prejudiced if the Committee does not determine, under s 4OT of the Act, that the word or expression should be used to indicate the area.
25 (2) For the purposes of paragraphs 25(1)(i) and (1), there exists, in relation to an area, word or expression to indicate the area that is included in a registered or unregistered trade mark, if the trade mark includes a word or expression that so resembles the word or expression that indicates the area as to be likely to be mistaken for it.
25 (3) For the purposes of paragraphs 25(1)(i) and (1), the material to be taken into account by the Committee in deciding:
(a) whether there exists, in relation to an area, a word or expression to indicate the area that is included in a registered trade mark; or
(b) whether such a trade mark gives the owner exclusive rights to the use of such a word or expression,
shall include, and may, if the Committee so determines, be limited to:
(c) a report from the Registrar of Trademarks setting out the trade marks in respect of goods in class 33 which were revealed by a search for such a word or expression in the Register of Trade Marks; and
(d) a statement from the Registrar of Trademarks as to whether, in the opinion of the Registrar of Trademarks, each of the trade marks contained in the report referred to in paragraph (c) gives the owner of the trade mark exclusive rights to the use of such a word or expression.
25 (4) For the purposes of paragraphs 25(1)(i) and (j), the material to be taken into account by the Committee in deciding:
(a) whether there exists, in relation to an area, a word or expression to indicate the area that is included in an unregistered trade mark; or
(b) whether such a trade mark gives the owner exclusive rights to the use of such a word or expression, may, if the Committee so determines, be limited to the material which is before the Committee.
25 (5) For the purposes of this Regulation 25:
(a) the expressions ‘Register of Trade Marks’ and ‘Registrar of Trade Marks’ shall have the same meanings as are given to the terms ‘Register’ and ‘Registrar’ respectively by s 6 of the TMA; and
(b) a word or expression shall be taken to be included in a registered or unregistered trade mark if the trade mark includes or consists of the word or expression.
13 (4) For the purposes of sub-s 40J(5) of the Act, wines with a description and presentation that includes a trade mark that includes:
(a) a registered Australian geographical indication, whether or not it is accompanied by another word or expression such as ‘kind’, ‘type’, ‘style’, ‘imitation’ or ‘method’ or any similar word or expression;
(b) a translation of a registered Australian geographical indication; or
(c) a word or expression that so resembles a registered Australian geographical indication as to be likely to be mistaken for the geographical indication,
are exempted from sub-ss 40C(1), (2) and (3), s 40E, sub-s 40G( 1) and Regulation 21, where the trade mark has been applied for or registered in good faith, or where rights to the trade mark have been acquired through use in good faith, either:
(d) before 1 January 1996; or
(e) before the geographical indication is protected in Australia.
[†] Partner, Finlaysons, Barristers & Solicitors, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. This paper was presented at the International Wine Law Association (Australasian Chapter) Annual Conference held in the Yarra Valley, Victoria, Australia, 25–26 October 1998.
Disclaimer: This paper is based on the law as it stands on 1 October 1998. It is not intended to be a complete and definitive statement of the law and the information and views contained in it should not be regarded as a substitute for specific advice in individual situations. Further professional advice should be sought before applying the content of this paper to particular circumstances.
Acknowledgement: I gratefully acknowledge the information provided to me by the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation as regards the current and proposed state of the Register of Protected Names.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FlinJlLawRfm/2000/22.html