Hearing Officer Iain Thompson supported Target’s opposition argument that the use of the marks would be contrary to law (Section 42(b) of Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)) as Catchofthedays’s use of the term “TAR JAY” would be misleading and deceptive under Australian Consumer Law 2010 (Cth).
Click here to view the image.
In reaching this decision it was noted that:
- the TARGET trade mark is well known in Australia;
- even though Target has not used the word “TAR JAY” as a trade mark in Australia, this factor was not a decisive one given that the term “Tarjay” is so strongly associated with Target by the general public; and
- the appearance of other elements in the marks such as the term “mumgo” was inadequate to displace the public’s strong association with Target.
This decision indicates it may be a costly mistake to attempt to trade mark nicknames of companies which are well recognised in the public, even for satirical purposes. It also serves as a reminder for brand owners to be more prudent in protecting their brands as even a nickname may not be safe from appropriation in “The Trade Mark Games”.
To view the decision: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/ATMO/2015/54.html