Trade-Marks and Trade Names. Marks and Names Subject of Ownership. Geographical Name Used Fictitiously and Arbitrarily Held Valid Trade-Mark

1946 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 308
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Trade Names

Australia (‘.au’)

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair Payne ◽  
David Fixler
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Consumer Law ◽  
Trade Names

Trade marks and trade names are protected in Australia by a combination of registered trade mark protection (Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA), the action in ‘passing off’ at common law and by the prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct and false association under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010) ss 18 and 29 (corresponding provisions under previous legislation: Trade Practices Act 1974, ss 52 and 53).

Four Dimensions of Diamond T: Combination Trade Marks of Colours And Shapes

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 583
Author(s):  
Michael McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Fourth Dimension ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Dimensional Shape ◽  
Three Dimensional Shape

This article examines the relatively new fields of colour and shape trade marks. It was initially feared by some academics that the new marks would encroach on the realms of patent and copyright.  However, the traditional requirements of trade mark law, such as functionality and descriptiveness, have meant that trade marks in colour and shape are extremely hard to acquire if they do not have factual distinctiveness. As colour and shape trade marks have no special restrictions, it is proposed that the combination trade mark theory and analysis from the Diamond T case should be used as a way to make them more accessible. The combination analysis can be easily applied because every product has a three dimensional shape and a fourth dimension of colour.

Relationship Between Geographical Indications and Trade Marks under Turkish Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ufuk Tekin
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Geographical Indication ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
First Time

Abstract While geographical indications show geographical origin, trade marks show commercial origin. Therefore, it is possible to say that both geographical indications and trade marks have distinctive character. Indeed, when an application is filed to register a geographical indication as a trade mark, an important question is whether the sign is distinctive enough. In such cases, the distinctive character of these commercial and geographical ‘signs’ can overlap and intersect with each other. In this article, the intersection and relationship between geographical indications and trade marks will be evaluated by considering two different scenarios. In the first one, the trade mark application precedes the registration of the geographical indication, while in the second the application for the geographical indication is filed before the conflicting trade mark. The analysis is carried out by taking into account various provisions of theTurkish Industrial Property Code (IPC), the judicial practice of the Turkish Court of Cassation and international regulations. In this context, the relationship between several absolute grounds for refusal in such a situation and which of these provisions is the most applicable will be examined. In particular, an attempt will be made to explain the role of the absolute ground for refusal regulated in the new Turkish Industrial Property Code for the first time, namely that signs containing or consisting of a geographical indication cannot be registered as a trade mark (Art. 5.1(i)).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document