Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T23:01:07.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquired Distinctiveness as a Sole Criterion for the Registration of Trade Marks under Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act 1955 (CTH)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Augustus Asante Agyemang
Augustus Asante Agyemang*
Affiliation:
Legal Services Branch, Australian Customs Service, Canberra
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) (referred to in this article as “the Act”) provides in ss 24-26 various criteria for establishing the registrability of trade marks under the Act Those provisions require a trade mark to be distinctive or if not distinctive, capable of becoming distinctive of goods or services in respect of which registration of the trade mark is sought, before it could be registered.

This article examines s 25 of the Act, which provides for the registration of trade marks in Part B of the Trade Marks Register, in the light of some of the decisions of Australian courts. The object is to determine if such decisions conform with the terms of the provision. Some comparisons are made with the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1938 (UK). The article concludes that given the terms of s 25 of the Act, acquired distinctiveness could be a sole criterion for the registration of trade marks in Part B of the Register. The frrst part of the article considers the background to the section.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 116 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am very grateful to Dr Sam Murumba of Monash University Law School for encouraging me to publish this article.

References

1 Sections 24(1) and 25(1).

2 Shanahiu, DR, Australian TrtUh Mark Law and Practice (1982) 109Google Scholar.

3 Id.

4 H Reps Deb 1955, Vol 6, 574 (10 May 1955).

5 Report of tM Committee Appoinled to Consider What Alterations are Desirable in the Trade Marks Law of tM Commonwealth (TM Dean Report) (1954).

6 Hack, J B, “Part B Registration in Australia” (1960) 50 TMR 371, 375Google Scholar.

7 Michaels, A, A Practical Guide to Trade Marks (1982) 24Google Scholar.

8 BlancoWhite, T A and Jacob, R, Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (12th ed 1986) 130Google Scholar.

9 Apart from the 1978 amendment which introduced registration of service marks into the Act, the provision has remained as enacted in 1955.

10 Liberman, A, Guidebook to Australian Trade Marks Law and Practice (2nd ed 1985) 19-20Google Scholar; Clarie Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511, 512-513 per Kitto J; Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) s 46.

11 Id.

12 J B Hack, supra n 6, 385.

13 [1966] RPC 220, 227.

14 J B Hack, supra n 6, 386.

15 Maher, F K H, Waller, L and Derham, D, Cases and Materials on the Legal Process (4th ed 1984) 421Google Scholar.

16 DR Shanahan, supra n 2, 110.

17 Burger King Corp v Registrar of Trade Marks (1973) 128 CLR 417, 424 per Gibbs J.

18 D R Shanahan, supra n 2, 109.

19 J B Hack, supra n 6, 385-386.

20 “Autoanalyzer” Trade Mark [1970] RPC 201,206 per Whitford QC.

21 Yorkshire Copper Worb Ltd's Application (1954) 71 RPC 150; Electriz Ltd v Electrolux Ltd [1960] AC 722; Liverpool Electric Cable Co Ltd's Application (1929) 46 RPC 99.

22 Id.

23 [1982] 1 All ER 257; [1982] FSR 111.

24 Id.

25 York Trade Mark [1981] FSR 33, 44.

26 Id.

27 [1982] 1 All ER 257, 259.

28 Ibid 251; York Trade Mark [1981] FSR 39, 44.

29 York Trade Mark [1981] FSR 39, 44.

30 Ibid 50.

31 [1982] 1 All ER 257, 263. Thus, the House of Lords has overruled English cases like “Weldmesh” Trade Mark [1965] RPC 590 and Davis v Sussex Rubber Co (1927) 44 RFC 412, which suggest that if a trade mark was capable, through use, of distinguishing an applicant's goods, it could be registered in Part B of the Register.

32 Ricketson, S, The IAw of Intellectual Property (1984) 644Google Scholar.

33 (1973) 128 CLR 417.

34 Ibid 420-421.

35 Ibid 419, 425.

36 Ibid 424.

37 Ibid 425. See generally Re Application by Grant (1987) 9 IPR S7; Re Application by Food Plus Ltd (1988) 9 IPR 2S1; Re Application by Waterford Glass Group Ltd (1988) 9 IPR 339.

38 (1964) 111 CLR 511, 512.

39 Id.

40 Id.

41 Ibid 517.

42 Ibid 516.

43 Ibid 513.

44 Italics added.

45 (1964) 111 CLR 511, 513.

46 The Dean Report, supra n 5, para 15.

47 Clark's case supra n 38, 513 per Kitto J; A Llberman, supra n 10, 20.

48 Pearce, D C and Geddes, RS, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (3rd ed 1988) 198Google Scholar. In a similar context in HIX International Pty Ltd v Semco Pty Ltd (1983) 49 ALR 636, 647, Fox J said that relief under s 22 of the Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) would be, prima facie, discretionary because of the use of the permissive “may” in the opening words of the section.

49 J B Hack, supra n 6, 388.

50 (1980) 28 ALR 537.

5I Ibid 539.

52 Ibid 540.

53 Id.

54 Ibid 539.

55 Ibid 547-548.

56 Ibid 548.

57 Ricketson, S, The Law of Intellectual Property (1984) 657Google Scholar.

58 Ibid 658.

59 Ibid 651-658.

60 Ibid 658.

61 (1988) AIPC 90-517, 38 455; case note in (1989) 6 EIPR 216. Special leave to appeal to the High Court has been granted to the unsuccessful appellant

62 Ibid 38 483.

63 Id.

64 D R Shanahan, supra n 2, 112; Pioneer Electronic Corporation v Registrar of Trade Maries (1977) 137 CLR 670, 686.

65 Eg the Yorkshire case for copper piping, supra n 21; the Liverpool case for electric cables supra n 21; and the York case for trailers and containers, supra n 23.

66 Eg Electrix Ltd v Electrolux Ltd, supra n 21; Re J Crosfield & Sons Ltd's Application (1910) 1 Ch 130.

67 Clark's case, supra n 38; Kimberley-Clark Corp v Registrar of Trade Marks (1963) 109 CLR 527; Burger King Corp v Registrar of Trade Marks (1973) 128 CLR 417.

68 (1969) 111 CLR 51l.

69 Ibid 515.

70 Gratwick, S, “The York Trailer Case - Was 'York Trailer' Correctly Decided?” (1983) 2 EIPR 45-49Google Scholar.

71 Cole, P, “The York Trailer Case - Registrability of Geographical Names and Other Prima Facie Non-Distinctive Words in Part B” (1980) 2 EIPR 402, 405Google Scholar. Compared with a common law action for passing off, registration under the Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) would, to some extent, simplify proceedings.

72 [1910) l Ch 130.

73 Ibid 859.

74 Comish, W R, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Maries and Allied Rights (1981) 528Google Scholar.

75 (1976) 2 NSWLR 124.

76 Ibid 128.

77 Id.

78 A Liberman, supra n 10, 78-79.

79 Sections 60, 61.