本篇代写-商标法案例讲了这里有一个案例可以考虑考虑公司的商标问题。这是汉堡王公司与商标注册(1973)128 CLR 417, 1973年5月11日的案例。汉堡王公司合并佛罗里达州的法律下,美利坚合众国的法律之一,申请这个词“弥天大谎”商标的符号B Pt的注册商标对班上所有商品30包括三明治。但贸易登记局拒绝申请。本篇代写文章由加拿大第一论文 Assignment First辅导网整理，供大家参考阅读。
There is one example of case which can be considered here considering the trade mark issues of the company. It is the case of Burger King Corporation vs. Registration of Trade Mark (1973) 128 CLR 417, 11 May 1973. Burger king corporation which is incorporated under the laws of Florida, one of the law of United States of America put an application for the word “WHOPPER” as the sign of trade mark in the Pt B of the Register of Trade Mark with respect to all goods in the class 30 including sandwiches. But the registrar of trade refused to application. Under the Trade Mark Act 1955 -1966 (Cth) (“the Act”): –
“A trade Mark is the registrable in the Part B of the register if it is distinctive, or not distinctive but capable of being distinctive, of goods in respect of which registration of the trade mark is sought and in which the applicant for the registration is or may be connected in the course of trade.”
The reason why the registrar refused to proposes the word “WHOPPER” as a trade mark because it was already registered and is used in Australia. In Australia, with the extension of “HOME OF THE WHOPPER” is used in connexion with the restaurant services and particularly with the hamburger sandwiches and sale thereof. However it is already registered with USA with the name of “WHOPPER” and in certain countries and extensively used in applicant’s product particularly with the hamburger sandwiches.
This case has a connection with the current case because the trade mark of StaCeYY is already registered so this is the reason why MiChaeL cannot use this trade mark sign. Similarly is with the design of the dining table.