Snack Foods Limited v Premier 1st Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 135

Snack Foods Limited v Premier 1st Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 135

While the applicants established a prima facie case for trade mark infringement, the balance of convenience and justice strongly favoured refusal of interlocutory injunctive relief, as potential harm to respondents was real and significant compared to speculative harm to applicants, who had not yet launched their product or used the POPPED CORNERS mark in Australia.

Parties
First Applicant: Snack Foods Limited (ACN 007 130 501); Second Applicant: Snack Brands Australia (ABN 38 424 554 643); First Respondent: Premier 1st Pty Ltd (ACN 080 339 108); Second Respondent: Medora Snacks LLC
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Infringement and Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief; Orders and Directions Made on 23 November 2012; Reasons for Refusal Provided 25 February 2013
Outcome
Applicants' interlocutory application for injunctive relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Interlocutory Injunctions, Trade Mark Cancellation, Honest Concurrent Use, Prior Continuous Use, Balance of Convenience, Australian Consumer Law
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Trade Mark Infringement Interlocutory Injunctions Trade Mark Cancellation Honest Concurrent Use Prior Continuous Use Balance of Convenience +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Snack Foods Limited (ACN 007 130 501)

First Applicant

Snack Brands Australia (ABN 38 424 554 643)

Second Applicant

Premier 1st Pty Ltd (ACN 080 339 108)

First Respondent

Medora Snacks LLC

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Infringement and Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief; Orders and Directions Made on 23 November 2012; Reasons for Refusal Provided 25 February 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to interlocutory injunctive relief restraining use of the POPCORNERS mark in Australia
  2. 2 Whether there is trade mark infringement of the POPPED CORNERS mark
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and justice supports granting interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

While the applicants established a prima facie case for trade mark infringement, the balance of convenience and justice strongly favoured refusal of interlocutory injunctive relief, as potential harm to respondents was real and significant compared to speculative harm to applicants, who had not yet launched their product or used the POPPED CORNERS mark in Australia.

Court Disposition

Applicants' interlocutory application for injunctive relief dismissed

Orders

  • Leave granted for filing specific affidavits by both respondents and applicants
  • Confidential documents to be filed and not disclosed without Court order