Howard Auto-Cultivators Limited v Webb Industries Pty Ltd [1946] HCA 15
The majority (Rich, Starke, Dixon, McTiernan JJ; Latham CJ, Williams J dissenting) held that 'Rohoe' was not an invented word under s. 16(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1936 because it was a transparent contraction of the commonly known words 'rotary' and 'hoe', thus registration should be refused.
- Parties
- Appellant/opponent: Howard Auto-Cultivators Limited; Respondent/applicant: Webb Industries Proprietary Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; application for registration refused
- Legal Topics
- Trade Marks, Invented Words, Registrability of Trade Marks
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Howard Auto-Cultivators Limited
Appellant/opponent
Webb Industries Proprietary Limited
Respondent/applicant
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the word 'Rohoe' is an invented word within the meaning of s. 16(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1936 and thus registrable as a trade mark in respect of cultivating implements
Ratio Decidendi
The majority (Rich, Starke, Dixon, McTiernan JJ; Latham CJ, Williams J dissenting) held that 'Rohoe' was not an invented word under s. 16(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1936 because it was a transparent contraction of the commonly known words 'rotary' and 'hoe', thus registration should be refused.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; application for registration refused
Orders
- Order of Deputy Registrar set aside
- Application for registration refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment