Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 MARCH 2015

Trade marks: Nakedbus stripped by Intercity

Did use of a competitor's mark in Google AdWords infringe the trade mark?

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Intercity Group (NZ) Ltd v Nakedbus NZ Ltd [2014] HC 124

KEY ISSUE

Did use of a competitor's mark in Google AdWords infringe the trade mark?

Was the mark used descriptively in advertising or as a trade mark?

FACTS

I and N are the no. 1 and 2 long distance bus companies in NZ, with I being the original monopoly.

I owns INTERCITY®. There were many prior disputes between them in relation to "inter city" use.

N purchased 87 Google AdWords containing "inter city" and used the phrase in advertising which was displayed when the search term was entered into Google. The phrase also appeared on its website.

I sued N claiming trade mark infringement, passing off and breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

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.

See more popular content from