The “Big Jack” Verdict: No Trade Mark Infringement by Hungry Jack’s

The "Big Jack" Verdict: No Trade Mark Infringement by Hungry Jack's Following a 3 year Court battle brought by McDonald's against Hungry Jack's, the Australian Federal Court has ruled that Hungry Jack's did not engage in trade mark infringement. The fast-food industry is highly competitive, with companies constantly vying for the attention of consumers and innovating to stay ahead. The legal beef between the burger giants began when Hungry Jack's released burgers called the "Big Jack" and "Mega Jack". McDonald's alleged that this was an infringement of McDonalds' trade mark over "Big Mac". During the trial, Hungry Jack’s chief marketing officer, Scott Baird, admitted that there was an "element of cheekiness" in the burger name, but maintained that the name was not chosen because of its similarity with McDonalds' burgers. The Court emphasised that for a trade mark to be protected, it must possess a level of distinctiveness that sets it apart in the market. McDonald's asserted that the use of the term "Big" in Hungry Jack's Big Jack was an infringement. However, the Court clarified that trade mark protection is not absolute and does not extend to every use of a common term like "Big." The scope of protection must be reasonably defined. Another critical legal consideration was the examination of how consumers could perceive the products. The Court looked at whether the average consumer would likely be confused between the Big Jack and Big Mac. The Court held that the respective names were not deceptively similar and that consumers would not be confused between which restaurant sold the respective burgers. It wasn't however a total win for Hungry Jack's. McDonald's succeeded in a separate argument that Hungry Jack's had mislead consumers and breached consumer laws by advertising that its Big Jack burger contained "25% more Aussie beef" than the Big Mac burger. Tests conducted by a scientist during the trial showed Hungry Jacks' claim to be incorrect. This case shows that the argument of trade mark infringement can often be a fine line. Such disputes highlight the competitive nature of the market and the lengths companies are willing to go to protect their brand identity. If in doubt about whether your advertising (or that of a competitor) may constitute trade mark infringement, obtaining legal advice is key. By Luke McKavanagh Luke is part of Salerno Law's commercial law team. His days involve providing advice on a wide variety of commercial issues that arise in operating small to medium businesses, where he assists clients who are growing their business or wanting to protect what they’ve established.

kateflett2023-11-20T17:04:23+10:00November 20th, 2023|Copyright & Trademark, Litigation|

Kanye West’s ‘YEWS’ Trademark Application Raises Concerns in Brisbane

Kanye West's 'YEWS' Trademark Application Raises Concerns in Brisbane Introduction Kanye West, the renowned musician and fashion icon, has recently filed a trademark application for the term 'YEWS' with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The trademark application covers a range of ventures, including fashion and gambling. While this move represents a strategic expansion of West's brand, it has raised concerns for a Brisbane-based tech company, Your Easy Web Solutions (YEWS), which uses the acronym 'YEWS' for its business operations. This article explores the potential ramifications of West's trademark application on YEWS and the associated concerns regarding the controversial views expressed by the rapper. The Trademark Application Kanye West's trademark application for the term 'YEWS' signifies his intention to use this brand for various business activities, notably fashion and gambling. This development indicates West's expansion beyond the music industry into sectors that may overlap with the operations of other companies, such as YEWS. In this regard, various music artists (Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Dr Dre, Jay Z, etc) have enjoyed phenomenal success with business ventures outside their normal music endeavours. Concerns for Your Easy Web Solutions (YEWS) Brisbane's tech company, Your Easy Web Solutions, currently utilizes the acronym 'YEWS' as part of its brand identity. In recent media reports, YEWS’ Managing Director, Alexei Kouleshov, has expressed genuine concerns regarding the potential impact of West's trademark application on YEWS. These primary concerns being as follows: 1. Rebranding Requirement: Should Kanye West's trademark application be approved, it might necessitate that YEWS undergo a significant rebranding effort. This process can be costly and time-consuming, potentially affecting the company's pre-established identity. 2. Reputation and Controversy: A central concern lies in the potential association between the term 'YEWS' and the similarity to the word 'Jews.' Given Kanye West's history of making controversial and his recently reported anti-Semitic comments, this connection may result in reputational damage for the Brisbane-based company for Kanye West using the term ‘YEWS’. Such negative connotations could harm YEWS' image and standing in the market. 3. Neutral Business Orientation: Mr. Kouleshov emphasised that YEWS is a neutral entity when it comes to political and controversial matters. The company having operated for 16 years with a focus on web development and digital marketing. Any unintended association with controversy could adversely affect the company’s position and standing as a reliable and neutral service provider. 4. Legal Action to Protect Brand Identity To safeguard the company's brand identity and reputation, Mr. Kouleshov expressed his commitment to taking all necessary legal actions. This suggests that, if West's trademark application poses a substantial threat to YEWS, the Brisbane-based tech company may explore legal remedies to protect its interests and ensure its continued operation with minimal disruption. The obvious concern being the uphill battle that Mr. Kouleshov may face, as a business owner, taking on someone who has significant financial and legal resources such as Mr. West. Trademark/Copyright Law Do I need to register my trademark? Registering your trademark is not mandatory in Australia, but it is [...]

kateflett2023-10-24T09:57:51+10:00October 24th, 2023|Commercial & Corporate, Copyright & Trademark, Intellectual Property, Litigation|

Australia Supports the Matildas (But just not on Instagram or Facebook)

Australia Supports the Matildas (But just not on Instagram or Facebook)In case you have been living under a rock, you would know that the Matildas and their world cup success are big news right now. You have probably seen it on TV and on news websites and live streaming services. However, you probably haven’t seen it on Instagram or Facebook though. Why is that? The likely reason is that it has been removed by the platform at the request of FIFA: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/fifa-deletes-matildas-fans-world-cup-videos-from-social-media-20230721-p5dq5z.html FIFA owns the copyright and the broadcasting rights to every match played in the world cup series. It sells the rights in the copyright to live streaming services and television broadcasters, which is a key revenue stream for FIFA. If FIFA allowed people to attend the matches and film them with their camera phones and post them to Instagram and Facebook then it would not have the ability to sell the exclusive rights in their copyright to Seven Network and Optus Sport, so they enforce it stringently. The legal mechanism is a portfolio of trade marks, and conditions on match tickets purchased that prohibit personal broadcasting. FIFA employs a team of people to monitor social media for breaches of their copyright, which they report to the social media platform as soon as they are detected. The words “World Cup” are trademarked, so if a business in Australia used it, say, as part of a promotion, then it may be pursued for trade mark infringement. Trademarks are covered by Federal law in Australia and depending on the type of offence, may be caught by the Trademarks Act 1995 (Cth) and the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The legislation imposes criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment, however, the civil claims for compensation and costs could outweigh the fines imposed. Trademarks, Copyright, Halal Meat and Stripper Poles A clear example of this is the Federal Court case Vertical Leisure Limited & Anor v Skyrunner Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] FCCA 2033 in which it was not possible to assess the financial gain of the respondent, which was selling a X-Pole dancing pole and DVD set online into the Australian market that passed off as the applicant’s product. The Court acknowledged that the conduct of the respondent cannot give rise to separate and additional damages under the Trademarks Act 1995 (Cth) and the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and the Australian Consumer Laws, rather the offending must be considered in its totality, and considered in context. The award of damages to compensate for lost profit and reputational harm amounted to $94,800, but additional damages of $300,000 were also awarded to punish the respondent for its flagrant and continued breach, but also to deter others. An example where the fine was higher than the damages award is the case of Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited v Scadilone Pty Limited [2014] FCA 614 which concerned a meat product wholesaler that sold the meat with the “Halal Certified” emblem despite not having the right to use it [...]

kateflett2023-08-16T13:22:28+10:00August 16th, 2023|Copyright & Trademark, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Sports|

Barbie Pink | Tiffany Blue | Post it Note Yellow | Cadbury Purple – Trademarking Colours

What is a Trade Mark? The Barbie movie has dominated the recent 2023 Australian headlines. However, Barbie is making headlines in the UK for a different reason; trade mark infringement. The toy's maker Mattel has lodged Court proceedings not for infringement of their brand name, but for the "Barbie Pink" tone of colour used in its advertising. Can you register a trade mark over a colour in Australia? What is a trade mark? In this article we explore these questions. What is a Trade Mark? Trade marks provide that extra measure of protection over your brand, deterring other people from using it and increasing your rights against those who infringe upon it. A trade mark is a registered symbol or words that are used to distinguish your goods and services from those of others. A trade mark is essential to protect your brand and distinguishes the goods and services that you provide in the eyes of consumers. A successful business is usually intrinsically associated with a valuable trade mark. What can I Trade Mark? You can register a trade mark over the following individual or combination of items: Logo Word Letter Number Phrase Picture Shape Colour Sound Smell Aspect of Packaging The more original or unique a trade mark is, the easier it will be to register. Something that is commonly used or likely for a competitor to use will be more difficult to register, such as a location or a common phrase. It must therefore be sufficiently different from other registered trade marks. It goes without saying that once someone has registered a trade mark, you cannot register a trade mark over that same subject matter. Even if somebody has not registered a trade mark over their brand or logo, but has used that brand and gained a reputation in the market place, you may also be prevented from registering a trade mark over that brand or logo. There are also restrictions for trade marks over flags, emblems, official signs and armorial emblems. For example, there are restrictions on trade marks containing a representation of/or association with the Royal Family. The Selection of Goods or Services When applying for a trade mark, you must select the category or categories of goods and/or services which you want your mark to cover, and provide a specification of each category. There are 45 categories to choose from. A poor description in the specification will not give proper protection. You cannot amend a trade mark description once it is registered, so it is good practice to invest in a professional to get this right in the beginning. You also will not be refunded the application fee if IP Australia refuses to register your trade mark. What does Registration Provide? Registration of a trade mark means it becomes your personal and intellectual property. It gives the owner a legally enforceable right to use the trade mark, licence its use to others or sell it (in the country in which the trade mark is [...]

kateflett2023-08-11T14:13:31+10:00August 11th, 2023|Copyright & Trademark, Intellectual Property, Litigation|

Woman Forced to Give Jacktpot to Husband in Divorce

Navigating Lotto Winnings and Divorce: A Comprehensive Guide In a twist of fate, winning the lottery can be both a dream come true and a life-altering event. But what happens when you win the lottery after a divorce or de facto separation? And how are family contributions, windfalls, and lottery gains treated during property settlement proceedings? News.com.au reports that a woman in California was ordered by the Court to give her ex-husband the entirety of her lottery winnings after failing to disclose the windfall in her property settlement. In 1996, after 25 years of Marriage to Mr Thomas Rossie, Mrs Denise Rossi won $3.1 million US dollars ($4.6 million AUS dollars) the lottery and eleven days later filed for divorce. Denise did not mention the winnings to her ex-husband and failed to disclose the windfall of $3.1 million in their property settlement. Two years following the property settlement, Mr Rossie came to know of his ex-wife’s lottery winnings and obtained a Court ordered injunction. Mr Rossie filed in Court and successfully obtained an order that Denise pay her ex husband the entirely of her winnings back in instalments. In this article, we will explore these questions and provide you with insights on handling lottery winnings during or after divorce. Q: What Happens if I Win the Lottery after Separation from my Spouse or Defacto Partner - How Do Family Law Property Proceedings Actually Work Winning the lottery can be an exhilarating experience, but it may also bring about complications, especially if you are going through a family law property settlement. 1. Do I Have a Duty to Disclose My Lottery Winnings? Similar to the US, parties to a property settlement in Australia have an obligation to make full and frank financial disclosure.[1] This generally includes bank statements, pay slips, tax returns and disclosure of any windfalls. A consequence of non-disclosure during proceedings, the party who fails to disclosure documents may be held guilty of contempt for not disclosing the document and may be ordered to pay the other party’s costs.[2] Further, the Court the Court may stay or dismiss all or part of a party’s case who fails to disclose documents.[3] 2. How are Family Contributions during the Relationship Important? During marital or de facto separation proceedings, Courts will often consider the contributions made by each spouse or partner to the family during the relationship.[4] This includes both financial contributions, such as income earned, as well as non-financial contributions, such as caring for the home or raising children.[5] Timing is of particular importance to a determination of contributions.[6] Contributions made at the beginning are typically given less weight than contributions made towards the end of the relationship.[7] In addition to contributions of parties to the relationship, a Court must also be satisfied that an Order is just and equitable.[8] Q: How are Windfalls, and Lottery Gains treated in Family Law Property Proceedings – What Does It All Mean? 1. Q: What if I Win Big Before Separation? A windfall gain [...]

kateflett2023-08-11T12:41:26+10:00August 11th, 2023|Family Law, Litigation, Wills & Estates|

R E S P E C T… Find out what it means to me!

R-E-S-P-E-C-T Celebrity Estate Dispute Known as the Queen of Soul with hits such as ‘Think’, ‘I Say a Little Prayer’, and ‘Respect’, Aretha Franklin sadly passed away in 2018 at the age of 76, and while her death was over 5 years ago, the battle for her estate continues in the USA. History of the Dispute During her lifetime, Aretha prepared two separate handwritten Wills. The first Will was written sometime in 2010 while the second Will was written in 2014. The 2014 Will was hidden in Aretha’s couch and subsequently found after her death, both inscribing some alterations as to which of her sons would inherit certain aspects of her estate. The 2010 Will lists Aretha’s niece, Owens, and her son, White, as co-executors and says Kecalf and Edward Franklin, Aretha’s other sons, “must take business classes and get a certificate or a degree” to receive a benefit from the estate. The 2014 Will crossed out White’s name as executor and has Kecalf Franklin in his place. There was no mention of business classes. Kecalf Franklin and the grandchildren would get his mother’s main home in Bloomfield Hills, which was valued at $1.1 million when she died but is worth much more today. Arguments put forward by Kecalf and Edward included that the 2014 Will out-dated the 2010 Will. On the contrary, it was argued that the 2014 Will is merely a draft, not being official and legal in nature particularly due to it being difficult to decipher through its handwriting. Franklin’s executor who helped oversee Franklin’s estate was unable to determine which Will was deemed valid during the probate process meaning the matter went to trial. It was found that the 2014 Will was established to be a valid Will by a jury, ending a long dispute between Franklin’s children. What would have happened if the dispute was considered by the Australian Courts? Usually, the Will with the most recent date that was validly written and executed is a person’s last Will and testament. This would dictate how the estate is divided. However, if you find a previous Will and there is a reason to suspect or contend that the latest-dated Will was not created validly, the penultimate valid Will may be binding. Testamentary intention is another important factor that a court will consider when determining the validity of a Will, because it distinguishes the Will as being written with the intention of being the last Will and testament. It is usually expressed in a strong opening statement, identifying the testator and their intention to make the Will and revoke all former Wills. More importantly, the Court will consider whether the document itself is capable to show it is intended to be a Will. The Court has recognised Wills deemed valid that contain a convincing testamentary intention. Including words such as ‘My Will’, could suggest you, as a testator, are aware of your assets with the intention of passing them on. How we can learn from this [...]

kateflett2023-08-10T14:19:54+10:00August 10th, 2023|Litigation, Wills & Estates|

Understanding Landlord Liability and Pursuing Compensation for Rental Property Injuries

Understanding Landlord Liability and Pursuing Compensation for Rental Property Injuries Renting a property can sometimes lead to unforeseen challenges, and in unfortunate cases, tenants may suffer personal injuries due to the negligence of their landlords. A recent rental dispute in Brisbane has highlighted the potential legal avenues available to tenants seeking compensation for their injuries. This article will aim to inform on the details of this case, whilst addressing the common questions related to personal injury claims against landlords. If you have been injured in a rental property, this will assist you in understanding your rights and possible causes of action. Summary of the Brisbane Rental Dispute: A rental dispute in Brisbane recently resulted in a $1.2 million claim being filed by a tenant against his landlord. The tenant, Justin Pirc aged 35, claimed that he had suffered severe injuries due to negligence on the part of the landlords, Cassandra and Jason Sheppard. According to the allegations, the property had several hazards, including faulty electrical wiring, exposed nails, and slippery surfaces. Mr. Pirc claimed that he sustained life changing injuries as a direct result of these negligent acts when he slipped on a flooded floor allegedly caused by a leaking pipe that was chewed through by a rat. This case emphasizes the importance of addressing safety concerns in rental properties and holding landlords accountable for their negligence. The dispute originated from a residential tenancy arrangement in Brisbane. According to court documents, the tenant alleged various issues with the property, including significant maintenance problems, safety concerns, and breach of contract by the landlord. These alleged issues led to a deterioration of the tenant's living conditions and ultimately prompted the legal action as he was unable to return to work due to his injuries. Tenant's Claims: The tenant alleges that the landlord failed to address numerous maintenance issues, despite repeated requests for repairs. Whilst the landlord, made attempts to fix the leak after numerous complaints, he used the same material as the original pipe which the rodent had chewed through, leading to the leak happening a second time. Additionally, the tenant contends that the landlord breached the terms of the tenancy agreement by failing to maintain the property in a habitable condition. Landlord's Response: Mr. Sheppard has refuted Mr. Pirc’s claims and asserts that they were not given sufficient notice or opportunity to address the alleged maintenance issues. The landlord maintains that they made efforts to resolve any reported problems promptly. They argue that the tenant's failure to provide necessary access to the property for repairs hindered their ability to rectify the mentioned concerns. Legal Proceedings: The dispute has now escalated into a $1.2 million claim, which is expected to proceed through the QLD court system. The tenant is seeking compensation for damages and initiating a case to recover economic loss. The case is likely to focus on the duty of care owed by the landlord, the adequacy of maintenance efforts, and the fact that the injuries sustained may have been [...]

kateflett2023-05-24T15:00:18+10:00May 24th, 2023|Litigation, Personal Injury, Property & Conveyancing|

Light plane crashes near Essendon airport

A pilot is lucky to be alive after his light plane crashed and flipped onto its roof in an emergency landing at Essendon Fields airport. Light plane fatalities were at an all time high in 2022, with a reported 23 deadly crashes across Australia. Salerno Law have extensive experience in acting and advising in relation to compensation claims for aircraft related matters. This includes acting for companies, individuals and families affected by helicopter crashes in New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. In addition, Cliff acted in the tragic plane crash which occurred at Hamilton Island in 2002 and is currently acting in one of Australia’s most significant and catastrophic helicopter accidents.Head of aviation, Cliff Savala, has over 25 years legal experience in aviation matters has included him dealing with the ATSB, CASA, the Coroners Court, Australian Federal Police and local police during the investigation and prosecution phase of an aircraft crash. Thereafter, instructing appropriate aviation experts and Kings Counsel during the civil litigation phase to ensure the best possible outcome for the affected companies, individuals and families.The laws surrounding aviation claims are complex and therefore it is essential that legal advice from an expert aviation lawyer is obtained. In this regard, international conventions apply and importantly the normal limitation period for bringing a personal injury claim is restricted to 2 years from the date of the incident.For the full article on the Essendon light plane crash, Nine News reports HERE

kateflett2023-05-19T16:41:18+10:00May 19th, 2023|Aviation, Copyright & Trademark, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Personal Injury|

Ed Sheeran’s Triumphant Lawsuit Victory: ‘Thinking Out Loud’ about Australian Copyright Laws

In a highly anticipated verdict, British singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran emerged victorious in a copyright trial, defending claims that his hit song "Thinking Out Loud" infringed upon the musical composition of Marvin Gaye's classic song "Let's Get It On." The verdict, delivered on May 4, 2023, by a federal jury in a United States District Court in New York, marked a significant moment in the ongoing debate surrounding music copyright infringement. The decision has far-reaching implications for the music industry worldwide and raises questions about the boundaries of creative inspiration and originality in song writing. The legal battle began in 2018 when Structured Asset Sales (SAS), which holds a part of the copyright for "Let's Get It On," filed a lawsuit claiming that Sheeran's song, copied the "melody, harmony, and rhythmic components" of Marvin Gaye's iconic track. The lawsuit sought damages and a portion of the royalties earned from Sheeran's song, which had achieved global success and widespread acclaim. The verdict sets an important precedent for future copyright cases in the music industry as well as reinforcing the notion that stylistic similarities or a similar feel between songs, does not provide sufficient grounds for a successful copyright infringement claim. Rather, the focus in these cases still remains on identifying the substantial similarity of the important elements of a song, such as the melody, lyrics and musical composition. As the music industry continues to evolve in this digital age, artists will be expected to continue to draw from the rich musical history that has come before them, meaning cases like this will undoubtedly arise again. This case highlights the importance of copyright laws, not only in the sense of artistic inspiration and music but also in the ever-changing modern world, which is why it is paramount to have an understanding of the way the law functions. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of fostering a robust dialogue about the intricacies of copyright law, artistic inspiration, and the ever-changing landscape of creative expression in the modern world. What is Copyrighting? Copyrighting is the legal term used for the mechanism that grants exclusive rights to the creators over their original works, which prevents others from being able to use, distribute or reproduce their creations without lawful permission. Copyright protection covers many forms, including many artistic forms such as music, film, art and literature. By obtaining copyright on original work, this allows for creators to gain control over the way their content is used and gives them the ability to seek legal relief if their rights are infringed upon. Copyright in Music and Song Lyrics: In the realm of music, copyright protects both the musical composition and the lyrics. The composer or songwriter holds the copyright to the musical composition, while the lyricist retains rights over the lyrics. This dual protection ensures that creators have control over the use and distribution of their content. APRA Music Copyright: In Australia, the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) plays a significant role in administering [...]

kateflett2023-05-18T16:16:53+10:00May 18th, 2023|Copyright & Trademark, Intellectual Property, Litigation|

Another Outback Victory for Salerno Law as Livestock Agent’s Cattle Rustling Charges dropped by the Western Australian DPP

Another Outback Victory for Salerno Law as Livestock Agent’s Cattle Rustling Charges dropped by the Western Australian DPP Daniel Leonard Wood, pictured, has had cattle rustling charges dropped after a two-year legal battle. A well-known stock agent accused of being involved in the State’s most elaborate cattle rustling operation has had his charges dropped after a two-year legal battle. Daniel Leonard Wood was charged with money/property laundering after WA’s rural crime squad launched an investigation into the theft of about 800 cattle worth $803,000 from Mardie Station, in the Pilbara, in March 2021. It was alleged Mr Wood — who pleaded not guilty to all charges and was due to stand trial in November — used his position as a Nutrien stock agent to sell the stolen cattle. In a statement released on Monday by Emma Salerno, Salerno CEO & Partner Lawyer representing Mr Wood, a spokeswoman said all charges against Mr Wood had been dropped. “Following a tumultuous two-year battle to defend Mr Wood’s innocence, the Director of Public Prosecutions has today formally discontinued the prosecution against him,” the statement said. “Mr Wood, co-owner of Great Western Livestock and Land, was charged with multiple criminal offences with WA Police accusing him of having sold stolen cattle." “Mr Wood, who does not have a criminal record and has never been on the wrong side of the law, was accused of being part of a so-called ‘criminal enterprise’ involving the stealing and laundering of cattle. “Mr Wood has always vehemently denied this harmful and costly accusation and he was grateful to Nutrien who stood in support of Mr Wood throughout the last two years.” The statement goes on to say that the accusations against Mr Wood “could not have been further from the truth” but “the damage has been done”. “Mr Wood has dedicated his whole life to the agricultural industry and has worked exceptionally hard to build his reputation as a dedicated and respected stock agent,” the spokeswoman said. The accusations were, and continue to be devastating to Mr Wood, his family, his business, and his livelihood. “The accusations were, and continue to be devastating to Mr Wood, his family, his business, and his livelihood. “Most concerningly, there was no evidence that Mr Wood received any financial advantage of being involved with the alleged criminal enterprise. “Mr Wood only received his usual commission for the sale of the allegedly stolen cattle, a sum of $2,389.48. “There was simply no motive or incentive for Mr Wood to be involved in any scheme to steal cattle, given that he was the elected cattle agent for most of the property owners in that region.” The DPP agreed to discontinue the prosecution against Mr Wood last week, with the decision formalised in the District Court on April 24. It comes after Mr Wood voluntarily provided a statement to WA Police and Salerno Law made detailed submissions to the DPP arguing the case against him “lacked sufficient evidence” and “had no reasonable prospects”. The [...]

kateflett2023-04-26T16:48:02+10:00April 26th, 2023|Agribusiness, Litigation|

SALERNO LAW HAS OFFICES IN:

Useful links

Get Connected