Last week was Valentines Day and for many, love was in the air! Chocolates, flowers, jewellery and romantic branding filled the shops so in the spirit of Valentines Day, check out these jewellery themed IP disputes, the case of an Aussie flower business fined $1 million by the ACCC for misleading and deceptive conduct and chocolate shaped trade marks!
Love is Not in the Air for Cartier Copycat
Earlier this year it was reported that Cartier had a win in a French court in its trade mark and copyright dispute against a company for trade mark infringement, copyright infringement and parasitic competition in connection with their making, marketing and/or selling of counterfeit or otherwise infringing versions of its coveted “LOVE” and “JUSTE EN CLOU” designs.
In addition to injunctive relief that bars the defendants from further infringing Cartier’s rights and requires them to destroy all infringing products, the court ordered the defendants to pay approximately €100,000 in damages.
You can read more on this from The Fashion Law here.
Tiffany Settles its 8 Year Trade Mark Dispute with Costco
In 2021, Tiffany & Co settled its more than eight-year-old lawsuit accusing Costco Wholesale Corp of trade mark infringement and counterfeiting for selling generic diamond engagement rings bearing the “Tiffany” name.
At the time, David Bernstein, a lawyer for Costco, said in an email that the companies “amicably resolved their dispute.” Tiffany issued a similar statement. Settlement terms were not disclosed.
Tiffany had sued Costco on Valentine’s Day in 2013, to protect the now 184-year-old company’s brand and cachet.
The dismissal filed with the federal court in Manhattan was “with prejudice,” meaning Tiffany cannot bring the lawsuit again.
You can read more here.
Aussie Flower Company Comes to a Proposed $1million Settlement with ACCC
In September 2024, an Aussie flower company Meg’s Flowers admitted to 156 websites posing as local shopfronts in a $1m settlement with Australian regulator ACCC.
Many customers were misled into thinking they were ordering from a flower shop in their local area which wasn’t the case.
In a joint submission to the federal court, Meg’s Flowers admitted the practice was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, and that the company made false or misleading representations in connection with the supply of delivered flowers concerning the place of origin of goods in contravention of Australian consumer law.
“In each case, the representation was misleading, because flowers ordered from Meg’s Flowers did not originate from a florist located in the town, suburb or locality referred to in the advertisement, because there are no Meg’s Flowers premises or third party florists located within the relevant town, suburb or locality,” the joint submission stated.
You can read more here.
Chocolate Shaped Trade Marks
We’ve covered this topic before in the spirit of Easter! It seems we like consuming chocolate no matter the occasion.
According to IP Australia, a shape trade mark is a three dimensional shape used to distinguish the goods or services of one trader from those of other traders.
Examples of existing shape trade marks include toothbrushes, biscuits, chocolates, pens, bottles and other packaging. Shapes with significant functional features are difficult to register.
A shape already in common use and required in the normal course of trade can’t be protected. You can’t gain a trade mark for a normal wine bottle or a standard shoe box, for example.
Check out some trade marked chocolate shapes below:
