Crennan J
96.
It became clear as argument advanced that what the plaintiffs most strenuously objected to was the taking or extinguishment of the advertising or promotional functions of their registered trade marks or product get-up, which functions were prohibited by the Packaging Act. It was said that, having regard to all the prior legislation restricting advertising of tobacco products, the percentage of the retail packaging surface to which the trade marks could be applied prior to the operation of the Packaging Act was the last space upon which the plaintiffs could advertise or promote their products, or offer them for sale in competition with other traders. The result of the prior legislative restrictions on advertising was said to be that the plaintiffs could only distinguish their products by what appears on the packaging for those products.
It is important to note that in every composite trade mark claimed by the plaintiffs, an essential feature for the purposes of distinguishing goods from those of competitors appeared to be a brand name. To the extent that colours, chevrons, crests, shields and similar insignia might be in common use in the retail trade in tobacco products, such non-verbal components of a composite trade mark might be discounted[1] in a comparison to determine the "deceptive similarity" of another mark, or where marks are compared side by side for the purposes of establishing their "substantial identity"[2]. The earliest of the registrations depended upon in the BAT proceedings is a registration of a composite mark including the word or brand name "Winfield" depicted in fancy script with a prominent "W"; it was originally registered in Part A of the Register under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1955 with a disclaimer of any exclusive right to use the letter "W". Part A was reserved for inherently distinctive marks or marks which had become distinctive through use[3]. Marks which were descriptive or which were, in their ordinary meaning, surnames or geographical names were not inherently distinctive[4]. A registration of a composite mark which included a word or brand name gave narrower protection for the purposes of comparison relevant to infringement or opposition proceedings than a registration of a word or brand name simpliciter. The adding of non-verbal devices or fancy lettering to a trade mark consisting of a word which was not inherently distinctive enhanced such a mark's prospects of registration in Part A of the Register.
- ↑ Wingate Marketing Pty Ltd v Levi Strauss & Co [1994] FCA 1001; (1994) 49 FCR 89 at 127 per Gummow J.
- ↑ The Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd [1963] HCA 66; (1963) 109 CLR 407 at 414–415 per Windeyer J; [1963] HCA 66.
- ↑ Trade Marks Act 1955, s 24.
- ↑ Trade Marks Act 1955, s 24(1)(d).
