Skip to content

PETER LOW IP LLP

Trade Mark Agents
Main navigation
  • Home
  • About us
  • Trade Mark Cases
    • Australia
    • New Zealand
    • Singapore
    • United Kingdom
  • Contact

Likely Confusion

Opposing goods not “sufficiently similar” to amount to confusion in trade mark dispute before IPONZ

Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) Hearing Officer: Virginia Nichols, Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks Decision Date: […]

Posted on 16 September 202226 September 2022 New ZealandTrade Marks

“DR WOLFF’S VAGISAN” trade mark held to be dissimilar to VAGISIL marks by High Court

High Court of Singapore Decision Date: 7 April 2022 Judge: Lee Seiu Kin J Appeal from: Dr August […]

Posted on 12 April 20229 June 2022 SingaporeTrade Marks

FEDERAL COURT confirms “freshly brewed coffee” not goods of the same description  as “ready-to-drink coffee, tea” sold in cans 

Energy Beverages LLC v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 113. In a trade mark dispute between energy drink […]

Posted on 8 April 20229 June 2022 AustraliaTrade Marks

HEYTEA trade mark in Class 30 subject of invalidation application before Trade Mark Office

In Shenzhen Meixixi Catering Management Co., Ltd. v Heetea Pte. Ltd. [2021] SGIPOS 12, the matter before the Principal Assistant Registrar […]

Posted on 1 March 202210 June 2022 SingaporeTrade Marks

SUPERMARKET retailers Clash over use of “INDIAN SUPERMARKET” trade mark

In All India Supermart Pte Ltd v Indian Supermarket Pte Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 293, the case […]

Posted on 14 February 20229 June 2022 SingaporeTrade Marks

KANGEN trade mark (for services in class 35) Refused Registration on grounds including bad faith

In Enagic Co Ltd v Horizons (Asia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 1512, the Federal Court of Australia […]

Posted on 14 December 20217 June 2022 AustraliaTrade Marks

Builders Dispute over the use of “Henley” Trade Mark

In Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Henley Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1369, the Federal Court of Australia concluded that the […]

Posted on 10 November 20217 June 2022 AustraliaTrade Marks

Flujo Sanguíneo Holdings Pty Ltd v Merisant Company [2021] NZHC 1505

The High Court of New Zealand in Flujo Sanguineo Holdings Pty Ltd v Merisant Company [2021] NZHC 1505 handed […]

Posted on 6 November 20216 June 2022 New ZealandTrade Marks

“Luke’s” held to be of Low Distinctiveness by Singapore High Court

In TMRG Pte Ltd and another v Caerus Holding Pte Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 163, the plaintiffs alleged […]

Posted on 3 November 202110 June 2022 SingaporeTrade Marks

“Botox” triumphant* after FULL COURT Overturned Decision at 1st Instance

BOTOX
P P Read More

In Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 163, the Federal Court of […]

Posted on 15 October 202118 October 2021 AustraliaTrade Marks

PUMA’S “procat” mark held to be deceptively similar to CATERPILLAR’S Registered CAT marks

In Caterpillar Inc v Puma SE [2021] FCA 1014, the Federal Court of Australia held that procat was […]

Posted on 15 September 202118 October 2021 AustraliaTrade Marks

FULL COURT confirms RELATIONSHIP between “Unity of Purpose”, “Authorised Use” and CONTROL of Trade Marks

In the Trident Seafoods Corporation v Trident Foods Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 100, the Federal Court of Australia […]

Posted on 24 June 20218 October 2021 AustraliaTrade Marks

FEDERAL COURT Clarifies “Liability of Trade Mark Owners” through Authorised Use In Relation to Trade Mark Infringement Claim

pancake with maple syrup
P P Read More

The Federal Court of Australia, in PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1078, confirmed the […]

Posted on 17 June 202119 October 2021 AustraliaTrade Marks

“VAGISAN” Refused Registration by FULL COURT – overturning decision at 1st Instance in Trade Mark Battle for “Feminine Care”

white ceramic sink beside window
P P Read More

In Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel [2021] FCAFC 8, the Federal Court of Australia […]

Posted on 20 May 202118 October 2021 AustraliaTrade Marks

In review: B.R. succeeded in opposing “Recherché” mark

hands woman girl morning
P P Read More

In B.R. v Elements Cosmeceuticals Pte. Ltd. [2021] SGIPOS 3, the Principal Assistant Registrar (“PAR”) refused the registration of […]

Posted on 8 May 202119 October 2021 Trade Marks
woman with glass of water after shower
P P Read More

“VAGISAN” for Feminine Wash Declared INVALID by the High Court of Singapore

CAESAR Successful in Opposing CAESARSTONE before the Full Court

three stainless steel forks near apple
P P Read More

In Ceramiche Caesar S.P.A. v Caesarstone Ltd [2020] FCAFC 124, the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) overturned the […]

Posted on 11 August 202019 October 2021 AustraliaTrade Marks

DELIBERATE COPYING Insufficient to Amount to “Misleading and Deceptive Conduct”

blue red and yellow stripe surface
P P Read More

The Federal Court of Australia, in Verrocchi v Direct Chemist Outlet Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 234 held that deliberate copying was […]

Posted on 18 June 202018 October 2021 AustraliaTrade Marks

Posts navigation

Previous1 2 Next
© 2026 PETER LOW IP LLP.
Footer navigation
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
Secondary navigation
  • Twitter
  • Feed
  • Mail
  • Search

Begin typing your search above and press return to search. Press Esc to cancel.