Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 DECEMBER 2024

Market Intelligence Thought Leadership Award Winner

The Coffee May Be Distinctive…but What About The Container?

ENS
Explore more from ENS

Shape trade marks are unusual, but this particular case dealt with the shape of the coffee jar in which the coffee brand Mocconna Classic Medium Roast is sold in Australia.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Gaelyn Scott
Gaelyn Scott
Author LinkedIn connections

In this article, we discuss a recent trade mark judgment in Australia relating to coffee and shape trade marks.

Shape trade marks

The case that we discuss is Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd (2024) FCA 1277.

Shape trade marks are unusual, but this particular case dealt with the shape of the coffee jar in which the coffee brand Mocconna Classic Medium Roast is sold in Australia.

1553094a.jpg1553094b.jpg

*Image credit

The claims

There were claims of:

  • trade mark infringement
  • breaches of Australian Consumer Law (ACL)
  • passing-off

There were counter-claims for:

  • cancellation of a trade mark registration on the basis of non-distinctiveness
  • cancellation of a trade mark registration on the basis of a lack of intention to use the trade mark

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers