A man charged with breaching the Trademark Act has been found guilty.
Dawson Enterprises has been charged with one count of trademark infringement and one count each of breaching trade mark and false advertising.
A jury has also found that Mr Dawson breached two provisions of the Trade Marks Act that apply to the use of trade marks and the misuse of trade names.
The jury found that the plaintiff’s use of the complainant’s trade mark was likely to cause confusion, injury and harm.
It found that Dawson Enterprises’ use of complainant’s mark and complainant’s name was likely in the circumstances to cause the respondent company to think that it was associated with the complainant.
The plaintiff is also being charged with a breach of a duty of care.
Ms Molloy said the case was an example of how consumers could be harmed by the use or misuse of a trade mark or mark used to promote products or services.
“The aim of the complaint was to prevent consumers from being misled or deceived,” she said.
“When consumers are not aware of the trade mark they are using, they may think they have purchased goods or services from a competitor or could not trust the goods or service they are buying.”
Ms Mollsoy said that the trade marks are “essential” to ensuring competition and consumers could potentially suffer if a business or person was misusing a trade name or mark.
“If consumers are misled by a trade marks use, that can lead to a significant impact on the competitive position of that business or company,” she added.
“This case is an example in that there are other trade marks, which may have been used by a competing business or a person in the past, that are now being used in the marketplace by consumers.”
The court heard that the complainant had used the complainant mark to promote its products on Facebook, YouTube and other social media sites.
The jury was told that the Facebook page, which was used to advertise its products, was being used to market a competing product, which the complainant claimed was Dawson Enterprises products.
The complainant had also been using complainant’s logo and complainant name to promote other products.
The complainant claimed that these were its own goods and services.
The plaintiff claimed that the use and misuse of the trademark were not in the public interest.
It was also alleged that the defendant had used complainant’s trademark in its advertisements, which it claimed were for goods and the complainant was not entitled to use as a mark of its own.
The defendant also claimed that its use of Mr Dawson’s trade marks was a form of unfair competition and that the complaint would have been rejected had it been accepted.
“There is no dispute that the respondent had a legitimate business purpose in promoting its own products, services and trademarks,” the court heard.
“It did not, however, infringe the complainant trade mark by using the complainant logo and Mr Dawson trade mark in relation to those goods and their products.”
The plaintiff’s defence counsel, Robert Macdonald QC, told the jury that the case had been a long-running legal battle and the case involved “several months” of legal arguments.
“What has been the outcome?” he asked.
“That the defendant has been forced to change the way it sells its products to the public,” he said.
“We have a case where the defendant is the owner of a business that is now being subjected to this infringement of its trade mark.”
Mr Macdonald said that he would seek a trial by jury to determine the value of the defendant’s business.
“I am hopeful that the jury will take into account the impact of the infringement of trade Mark,” he added.
Topics:law-crime-and-justice,consumer-protection,business-economics-and/or-finance,law-enforcement,courts-and the-courts,government-and.parliament,lawton-3250,sydney-2000,vic,australiaMore stories from Victoria