I understand the Lanham Act in the US works in a similar way. It would be misleading and deceptive contrary to the Australian Competition and Consumer Act. Thread revival because it is an interesting question. So, as long as the producers of The Simpsons don’t sell shirts with the “Java The Hut” logo, you could probably get away with swiping the one-shot name. So, right there, you’ve got your possibility of market confusion, the very thing trademark law is meant to prevent. Also, the show’s producers had marketed merchandise, such as caps and shirts, with the “Duff Beer” logo from the show. It looks to me as though the court found it very significant that Duff Beer was prominently featured in multiple episodes, and that at least one episode (“Duffless”) centered entirely on the subject of Duff beer. I found what appears to be the Australian federal court decision. The “Duff beer” situation seems to be a special case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |