find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (3-5 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Dynamic organisation ·
View details
Legal Counsel
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: North Sydney NSW 2060
· 18 month fixed term contract · 3-5 years PQE with TMT exposure
View details
Lion Nathan victorious in barefoot battle

Lion Nathan victorious in barefoot battle

A LANDMARK Federal Court decision has sent a clear warning to holders of trademarks in Australia — use them or lose them.The case involved a battle over the name “Barefoot”…

A LANDMARK Federal Court decision has sent a clear warning to holders of trademarks in Australia — use them or lose them.

The case involved a battle over the name “Barefoot” between Australian wine and beer producer Lion Nathan, and US wine giant E&J Gallo.

Lion Nathan had produced a new, carbon-neutral beer, with the intention of naming it “Barefoot Radler”, but Gallo had already registered “Barefoot” as a trademark in Australia for one of its top-selling wines.

However after determining that Gallo hadn’t actually used the trademark in Australia, Lion Nathan sought to have it removed in accordance the “non-use” provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1990 (Cth) (the Act). It then applied for its own trademark for “Barefoot Radler”. Gallo, in response, brought an action against Lion Nathan for trademark infringement.

Lion Nathan, represented by Mallesons Stephen Jaques, successfully defended the action. The court found that Lion Nathan’s removal of Gallo’s trademark was allowed under the “non-use” provisions, and even if it wasn’t, wine and beer are not products of the same description so there could be no infringement.

Under the “non-use” provisions of the Act, a party can apply to have another party’s trademark removed if it hasn’t been used in good faith for a period of three years, once it has been registered for at least five years.

According to Mallesons partner Scott Bouvier, this is the first time the provisions have really been tested. “There’s non-use [matters] that happen in the Australian Trade Marks Office every day, and they all go very administratively. But this was probably the first ever really big fight about non-use,” he said.

It was significant, Bouvier said, that Lion Nathan’s removal of Gallo’s trademark was upheld despite evidence that a small amount of Gallo’s barefoot wine had actually been sold in Australia.

“Gallo exported wine to Germany, and a small wholesaler in Melbourne imported it and sold it, but that wasn’t enough,” Bouvier said. “They hadn’t projected those bottles into Australia. That’s important ... because [it shows that] you need to actually plan to use the trademark here in Australia.”

Gallo also argued that at the time Lion Nathan had their trademark removed, they were actually in the process of developing a strategy to launch Barefoot wines in Australia in partnership with McWilliams Wines. But this argument was also rejected by the court, Bouvier explained, because this strategy wasn’t considered to be far enough developed.

The case is also significant for its finding that beer and wine are classified differently for trademark purposes.

“It’s the first time an Australian court has really looked at the question of whether beer is a good of the same description as wine,” Bouvier explained. “That’s quite important because there is so much branding in beer and wine, and in alcohol generally.”

The judgement will sends a strong message to international companies holding trademarks in Australia — that unused trademarks would not remain protected indefinitely.

BY ZOE LYON

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Lion Nathan victorious in barefoot battle
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
LCA president Fiona McLeod SC
Aug 17 2017
Where social fault lines meet the justice gap in Aus
After just returning from a tour of the Northern Territory, LCA president Fiona McLeod SC speaks wit...
Marriage equality flag
Aug 17 2017
ALHR backs High Court challenge to marriage equality postal vote
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) has voiced its support for a constitutional challenge to ...
Give advice
Aug 17 2017
A-G issues advice on judiciary’s public presence
Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis QC has offered his advice on the public presence of jud...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...