J. GODDARD & SONS V. GODDARD 6/1925

J. GODDARD & SONS V. GODDARD 6/1925

The evidence did not compel a finding that 'Goddard' had acquired a distinctive or secondary meaning in respect of plate powder; as another person honestly used the same name in the same trade and on a considerable scale, the name was not distinctive and should not be registered.

Parties
Applicant: Goddard; Respondent: Registrar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 1925
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Distinctiveness
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Distinctiveness

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goddard

Applicant

Registrar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the name 'Goddard' had acquired a distinctive meaning in respect of plate powder such that it qualified for registration as a trade mark under Section 16.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not compel a finding that 'Goddard' had acquired a distinctive or secondary meaning in respect of plate powder; as another person honestly used the same name in the same trade and on a considerable scale, the name was not distinctive and should not be registered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application for registration of 'Goddard' as a trade mark for plate powder is refused