Nike smells legal opportunity
NATIONAL: A long-running battle between activewear giant Nike and a company which produces a line of cosmetics under the same name has taken an unexpected twist.
Nike International is seeking the removal of two Australian trade mark registrations for non-use by Spanish company Campomar, which markets perfume products under the ‘Nike’ name. While the sports brand claims Campomar was absent from the local market over a period of three years ending March 2008, lawyers for the perfume supplier claim new Australian distributors were appointed last year.
Campomar has filed fresh evidence supporting its case to the Registrar of Trade Marks, with Nike given an opportunity to respond by March 7, 2011.
Campomar alleges that Australian company Brandpoint was appointed as local distributor in 2010, with products being sold through Woolworths stores and chemists throughout Queensland and Western Australia.
Exhibits show orders for Nike- branded cosmetics from August 3, 2010 and invoices for sales of goods to Australian chemists in August and September. Nike has argued against Campomar’s claims on several grounds, including the fact these sales were generated more than two years after the non-use period.
The latest developments come almost 17 years after Nike International first instituted proceedings against Campomar in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking a revocation of its trade marks.
In 1986 and 1992 respectively, Campomar was granted two ‘Nike’ registrations covering the perfume and soap goods categories. Nike International did not hold registrations which covered this class of goods at the time and did not market perfume products under this trade mark.
In 2004, Nike argued these registrations were ‘wrongly made’ given its immense reputation for the trade mark in other branded goods. The Federal Court accepted this would cause confusion in the marketplace and ordered the marks to be revoked.
However, a later Australian High Court proceeding saw Campomar succeed in preserving its two trade mark registrations. The ruling held that a mark’s likeliness to cause confusion should be ‘restricted’ to the date of application which, in 1986 and 1992 respectively, would not cause the ordinary person to consider that Nike perfume products were being produced by the same company which manufactured athletic shoes and uniforms.
Nike had not filed a response in the latest trade mark case at the time of press.
Assia Benmedjdoub