{"id":4447,"date":"2024-02-15T09:33:37","date_gmt":"2024-02-14T22:33:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sanickilawyers.com.au\/?p=4447"},"modified":"2024-02-15T09:39:42","modified_gmt":"2024-02-14T22:39:42","slug":"seven-network-v-7-eleven-the-importance-of-using-your-trademark-correctly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sanickilawyers.com.au\/seven-network-v-7-eleven-the-importance-of-using-your-trademark-correctly\/","title":{"rendered":"Seven Network v 7-Eleven: The Importance of Using Your Trademark \u2018Correctly\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The recent case of Seven Network (Operations) Limited v 7-Eleven Inc<\/em> [2023] FCA 608 affirms the importance of using one\u2019s trademark for their registered purpose. Otherwise, individuals risk losing registration of their trademark for \u2018non-use\u2019. In this case, Seven Network Operations Limited (\u2018Seven Network\u2019<\/em>) owned a trademark \u201c7NOW\u201d, which was registered in class 35 for the \u201cpromotion and sale of goods\/services for others\u201d. 7-Eleven Inc (\u20187-Eleven\u2019<\/em>) also applied for the trademark \u201c7NOW\u201d for use in class 35.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Naturally, conflict arose between these trademarks which share the same name and were intended to be used in the same class. 7-Eleven argued that Seven Network\u2019s trademark was invalid due to non-use. Section 92(4)(b) Trade Marks Act 1995<\/em> (Cth) (\u2018Trade Marks Act\u2019<\/em>) outlines that a trademark may be removed if, within a continuous period of 3 years, the registered owner at no time during that period, used the trademark in Australia. The case eventually reached the Federal Court, where Seven Network\u2019s registration was officially removed. The Court based its decision upon the following reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Firstly, Seven Network contended it used its trademark \u201c7NOW\u201d through the domain name 7now.com.au to redirect users to the 7PLUS website and promote the television services of other third parties. The Court rejected this argument, affirming that even though the domain name included the trademark \u201c7NOW\u201d, users were directed through this domain to the 7PLUS website, which did not display the 7NOW trade mark. Even though the 7PLUS website did promote third-party services, as the 7NOW trademark was not present on this website, no connection could be drawn between the trademark and its designated use to promote \u2018other\u2019 third-party services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Secondly, Seven Network also contended that the banner on the 7NOW website, which promoted the services of other third parties, displayed the trademark \u201c7NOW\u201d. The Court rejected this argument, asserting that despite the presence of the \u201c7NOW\u201d trademark in the website banner, the ordinary consumer would not think the 7NOW trademark was being used to promote the services of other third parties. Rather, they would believe it was being used to promote 7NOW\u2019s own goods and services. Overall, the use of the 7NOW trademark in the banner alone was not sufficient to fulfill its registered purpose. Further steps should have been taken to make clear the 7NOW trademark was being used to promote third-party services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, Seven Network argued that the Court should exercise their discretion outlined in s 110(3) Trade Marks Act<\/em> and permit the continuance of Seven Network\u2019s trademark, as Seven Network would otherwise suffer \u2018irreparable prejudice\u2019 if their trademark was removed. The Court rejected this argument, concluding no said prejudice would arise, as it was unlikely the ordinary consumer would believe the 7NOW trademark of Seven Network and 7-Eleven were in any way connected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In conclusion, it is important that trademark owners use their trademark for its registered purpose, according to the class in which it has been registered. Use of a trade mark in a website domain or website banner is in itself not sufficient to avoid losing your trademark to \u2018non-use\u2019. Regarding class 35 specifically, if a trademark owner is operating multiple websites and\/or domain names, the trademark owner must ensure they have actively displayed their trademark and the services of the relevant third party clearly and in the same place. Another key takeaway is that the courts are generally hesitant to exercise their discretionary power under s 110(3)\u00a0Trade Marks Act<\/em>\u00a0and therefore, trade mark owners should be diligent in ensuring that they are using their trademarks correctly and concerning their class registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you need trade mark advice then get in touch with one of our Intellectual Property Lawyers by emailing hello@sanickilawyers.com.au or calling (03) 9510 9888.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The recent case of Seven Network (Operations) Limited v 7-Eleven Inc [2023] FCA 608 affirms the importance of using one\u2019s trademark for their registered purpose. Otherwise, individuals risk losing registration of their trademark for \u2018non-use\u2019. In this case, Seven Network Operations Limited (\u2018Seven Network\u2019) owned a trademark \u201c7NOW\u201d, which was registered in class 35 for the \u201cpromotion … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":4174,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[106],"tags":[66,226,93,233],"class_list":{"0":"post-4447","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-trademarks-copyright","8":"tag-intellectual-property","9":"tag-intellectual-property-law","10":"tag-trade-mark","11":"tag-trade-mark-conflict","12":"entry"},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n