The maker of Mother Energy drinks has failed to convince the High Court that it should weigh in on its long-running intellectual property spat with Vittoria Coffee, which ended in the removal of its ‘Motherland’ trade mark.
The High Court has been asked to weigh in on whether online ads targeting Australian consumers can be the basis for a trade mark registration, in a long-running intellectual property spat between the maker of Mother Energy drinks and Vittoria Coffee over their respective ‘mother’ marks.
The owners of Mother energy drinks and Vittoria Food & Beverage have both lost their challenges to each other’s ‘Motherland’ and ‘Mothersky’ trade marks and are considering taking the long-running stoush to the High Court.
Lawyerly’s Litigation Law Firms of 2022 racked up precedent-setting victories in a year that continued to see major developments in class action law.
The maker of Mother brand energy drinks has won a stay of a judge’s decision to remove one of its trade marks for non-use, but has been hit with indemnity costs in its ongoing intellectual property stoush with rival Cantarella Bros.
The maker of Mother brand energy drinks has filed an appeal challenging a judge’s decision to remove two of its registered ‘Mother’ trade marks for non-use.
Energy Beverages, which makes Mother brand energy drinks, has failed to convince a judge that two of its ‘Mother’ trade marks should not be removed for non-use.
Coffee giant Vittoria has lost its bid to register the trade mark “Victoria Coffee”, with IP Australia finding the mark could prevent other businesses from honestly describing coffee products by referring to the state of Victoria.
Five enforcement officers of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be cross-examined by lawyers for banks facing price fixing charges over their conduct following ANZ’s $2.5 billion capital raising six years ago.
A judge overseeing a cartel case over a $2.5 billion ANZ share placement has granted ANZ’s bid for unredacted documents which the bank says will support its claims that the case should be permanently stayed because of improper dealings between whistleblower JPMorgan, ASIC and the ACCC.