Australian market plays a crucial role in terms of brand reputation as it is a valuable intangible asset which influences consumer trust and business growth. It is essential to maintain a strong brand reputation for the businesses to establish customer loyalty and thereby safeguard their market position. With the rise of increasing competition and digital media businesses has to proactively manage their reputation to maintain consumer trust and protect their market position.
I. What is Trade mark dilution?
Let us first understand what Trademark Dilution is. Trademark Dilution is when a third party uses a trademark or a tradename that is similar to a well-known mark that causes the owner of the well-known mark to be entitled to prohibit its use in a way that weakens its uniqueness and as well as harms its reputation even when there exists no confusion. It is different from the concept of traditional trademark infringement as in traditional trademark infringement a third party uses a trademark or a tradename which is similar or identical to the well-known mark which leads to confusion among the consumers about the source of goods and the services.
Trademark dilution or negative publicity weakens the consumer confidence which leads to decline in sales and causes reputational damage. A well-established reputation differentiates brands from competitors, especially in industries like retail, finance, and technology. Australian brands such as Bunnings, Telstra and Woolworths leverage their strong reputations to maintain a competitive edge. International brands entering the Australian market must work hard to gain trust and credibility against local household names.
II. The Legal framework of Trademark Dilution in Australia.
As far we have understood about trademark dilution, to focus more into the subject matter, there are two types of trademark dilution.
Dilution by Blurring:
Blurring refers to when a similar mark, even if it is not used on any competing goods or services, diminishes the distinctiveness of a famous mark. It essentially blurs the famous mark’s association with its original product or service, making it less unique. For e.g. a tech company is using a logo which is similar to a famous soft drink brand. The tech company does not sell soft drink of the well-known brand but can blur the unique identity of the soft drinks brand.
Dilution by Tarnishment:
Tarnishment refers to when there exists an unauthorised use of a famous trademark creates a negative impact with the famous brand potentially harming the brand’s reputation. For e.g. A food chain supplier using Qantas trademark on poor quality food can tarnish the Qantas brand’s reputation.
Section 120(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1995 (Cth) provides legal protection against trademark dilution by prohibiting the use of well-known trademarks in a way that unfairly exploits or weakens their distinctiveness even when there exists no confusion among the consumers. This provision protects the owners of the brand from unauthorised commercial gain and preserves the uniqueness of famous trademarks by preventing them from becoming generic or diluted in meaning.
This provision also aligns with the international standard of US Federal Trademark Dilution Act, 1995 which was later amended into Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 2006. For a trademark owner to successfully claim dilution under Section-120(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1995 (Cth), the following conditions must be met. They are:
- The Trademark must be a well-known trademark in Australia. The mark must have a widespread recognition and brand equity among the Australian consumers.
- Unlike traditional trademark infringement, dilution does not require the competing goods or services to be similar. The Infringing mark must be used on unrelated goods or services.
- The unauthorised use of the mark must suggest an association or harm the trademark’s reputation by blurring the distinctiveness of the famous mark by making it less unique. the unauthorised use of the brand’s mark must tarnish its reputation by associating it with lower-quality or controversial products.
This provision ensures that famous trademarks remain distinctive and protected from unauthorized commercial exploitation even when consumer confusion is not an issue.
III. Emerging Trends and Challenges in Australian Trademark Dilution Law:
The rise of social media and online platforms significantly changed the landscape of brand’s dilution and trademark protection in Australia. Digital platforms provide businesses with ample number of opportunities to expand their reach and it thereby increases the risk of unauthorized use, imitation and dilution of well-known trademarks. To prevent dilution and maintain trademark distinctiveness, there is requirement of proactive brand management and stronger legal enforcement.
As trademark dilution laws evolve in Australia, courts increasingly face parody and free speech defenses against dilution claims. Parody involves using a well-known trademark for humor, satire or commentary which often in ways that mock or criticize the brand. Courts must determine whether the use is a legitimate parody that does not mislead consumers or/and an unfair commercial exploitation that damages the brand’s distinctiveness.
While trademark owners seek to protect their brand reputation, individuals and businesses often argue that their use of a famous mark is protected expression rather than unlawful dilution. It is the Courts which must determine whether a parody is a genuine artistic expression or an attempt to free-ride on brand recognition.
IV. Recent Cases:
Recent trademark dilution cases in Australia have highlighted the complexities of protecting well-known brands against unauthorized use and imitation.
McDonald’s vs. Hungry Jack’s (2023)
In August 2020, McDonald’s initiated a legal action against Hungry Jack’s, the Australian franchise of Burger King, over the release of the “Big Jack” burger. McDonald’s alleged that the Big Jack closely resembled its iconic Big Mac in name, ingredients and marketing by potentially diluting the distinctiveness of the Big Mac trademark. In November 2023, the Federal Court ruled in favour of Hungry Jack’s “Big Jack” stating that “Big Jack is not deceptively similar to Big Mac and allowed Hungry Jack’s to continue using the Big Jack name.
Katy Perry vs. Katie Perry (2023)
A legal dispute arose between American singer Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Taylor who marketed her clothing under the brand “Katie Perry” since 2007. Katy Perry challenged the use of the “Katie Perry” name by citing potential dilution of her trademark. In November 2023, the Federal Court ruled in favour of Katy Perry leading to the cancellation of Taylor’s trademark registration and highlighting the challenges individuals face when their personal names coincide with established trademarks.
V. Conclusion:
Trademark dilution poses a significant challenge to businesses in Australia, particularly as digital platforms and global commerce continue to evolve. The legal framework provided under Section 120(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) offers a strong protection for well-known trademarks by ensuring that their distinctiveness and reputation are not unfairly exploited. The concepts of blurring and tarnishment highlights on the issue how trademarks can be weakened even in the absence of direct consumer confusion and emphasizing the importance of proactive enforcement. To safeguard brand reputation, businesses must adopt a comprehensive approach that includes vigilant trademark monitoring, legal action when necessary and proactive digital brand management. Courts play a crucial role in determining the boundaries of dilution protection by ensuring that trademark rights are preserved without stifling legitimate business practices or artistic expression.
Contact us
Contact us to learn more about how LexGeneris can assist you with all your intellectual property needs. You can also schedule a no-cost consultation with our team of expert IP Attorneys Australia, IP Attorneys India, and IP Attorneys New Zealand.
Together, we can safeguard and enhance the value of your innovations. Our dedicated team of Patent Attorney Australia, and Trademark Attorney Australia specialists can provide expert guidance and support, helping you navigate the complexities of intellectual property law in Australia, New Zealand, India, and beyond.
