Intellectual property – Trade marks – Trade mark infringement under s 120(1) of Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – Where ss 122(1)(f) and 122(1)(fa) read with s 44(3) of Trade Marks Act provide for defences of honest concurrent use – Where respondent registered word mark "ZIP" – Where appellants used substantially identical or deceptively similar trade marks – Where appellants aware at date of first potential infringement of likelihood of material impediment to legitimate use of trade marks – Whether appellants had defences of honest concurrent use to potential infringements – Whether defences of honest concurrent use assessed at date of first potential infringement – Meaning of "honest" in s 44(3)(a) of Trade Marks Act.
Words and phrases – "application for registration", "blameworthiness", "concurrent use", "deceptively similar", "defence to potential infringement", "dishonest", "first potential infringement", "good faith", "honest", "honest concurrent use", "infringement", "knowledge", "normal and fair use", "objective", "ordinary meaning", "point in time", "potential infringement", "standards of ordinary, decent people", "state of mind", "substantially identical", "trade mark", "would obtain registration".
Trade Marks Act 1905 (5 Edw VII c 15), ss 19, 20, 21.
Trade Marks Act 1905 (Cth), s 28.
Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth), ss 34, 58.
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), ss 10, 12, 23, 44, 88, 89, 92, 100, 120, 122.