Businessman touch screen concept Binary Code

Stay informed – latest updates on global trade mark cases

Malcolm Campbell ||

Playing for peanuts – Kraft v Bega

On 15 April 2020, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v Bega Cheese Limited [2020] FCAFC 65 upheld the decision that Kraft’s iconic peanut butter trade dress, which consists of a yellow lid, clear jar and red and blue labelling belongs to Bega Cheese Limited (Bega). Although Kraft had not previously tried to protect elements of the peanut butter trade dress as trade marks, Bega acquired title to the trade dress in 2017 when it purchased the assets from a number of Kraft’s Australian and New Zealand subsidiaries, including Kraft’s peanut butter business. Importantly, Bega’s asset purchase included acquiring all assets and goodwill of Kraft’s Australian subsidiary Mondelez Australia (Foods) Ltd (Mondelez), which had been using Kraft’s iconic peanut butter trade dress in the Australian market for a number of years.

In dismissing Kraft’s appeal, the Full Federal Court of Australia confirmed the primary judge’s interpretation that, according to Australian law, unregistered trade marks cannot be assigned without the underlying goodwill of the business in which the trade mark is being exploited. As such, Mondelez assigned the trade dress in the form of unregistered trade marks to Bega (possibly without much thought) when it sold all of its assets and goodwill to Bega. A detailed analysis of the appeal can be found here.

When being a good Samaritan could leave your brand exposed? 

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and with shortages on the production and supply of key products in the medical, hygiene and protective equipment fields, a number of well-known brands have converted their production facilities to help meet the shortfall. Well known fashion brand, Louis Vuitton has repurposed its perfume production lines to make hand sanitiser in France, the Armani Group are producing single-use medical overalls for health-care providers, whereas Ford, Tesla and General Motors have all begun producing ventilators in the United States.

While not to discourage brand owners and those with the necessary resources from responding to the public’s need in a time of crisis, brand owners should exercise caution when entering new industries to ensure that their good Samaritan act does not result in an infringement of someone else’s intellectual property rights. For example, companies should undertake their own due diligence and conduct trade mark, patent and design searches to ensure that no other entities hold conflicting rights that could prevent the production of such goods in Australia and if required, obtain a licence to produce such goods.

If you have any questions in relation to any of the information outlined, please do not hesitate to get in touch with a lawyer in Coleman Greig’s Intellectual Property Team, who would be more than happy to assist you today.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the content at the time of publication, information, regulations, services, and best practices may change over time. For more details, please read our full disclaimer.

Share:

Send an enquiry

Any personal information you provide is collected pursuant to our Privacy Policy.

Categories
Archives
Author

More posts

Privacy Reform in Australia: What Businesses Need to Know in 2026-2027 (Part 2)

The next tranche of proposed Privacy Act reforms has arrived, with potential implications for businesses undertaking digital marketing, AI initiatives, customer analytics and other data-driven activities. We examine the key proposed changes and the practical steps organisations should consider if the reforms proceed.

Male Judge Writing On Paper
Parramatta Family Court: What to Expect

Attending Parramatta Family Court? Here’s what to expect, from getting there to what happens on the day, plus where to get support. Read our full guide.

Couple Having An Argument In Front Of Judge
Exclusive Occupation of the Family Home After Separation

After separation, disputes about who stays in the family home can quickly become stressful and complex. This article explains when the Family Court may make an exclusive occupation order and the factors considered when deciding who can remain in the property.

Juris what? What is accrued and cross-vested jurisdiction?

In family law matters, disputes sometimes involve issues that fall under both family law and other areas of law. The court may use either accrued jurisdiction or cross-vested jurisdiction to avoid separate court proceedings.

Forfeited…or not? When leases can be brought back to life

This article outlines the key principles and practical considerations relevant to relief against forfeiture. Forfeiture is when a tenant breaches a lease, a landlord may be entitled to terminate the lease and recover possession of the property.