28.2. Honest concurrent use - para 44(3)(a)

Date Published

In order to overcome grounds for rejection under ss 44(1) or 44(2) of the Act, an applicant may, under para 44(3)(a), file evidence to establish honest concurrent use of their trade mark in Australia.

The doctrine of honest concurrent use evolved in response to changing market circumstances. Early 19th century trade in goods that was once largely local had expanded so that similar trade marks innocently adopted by geographically separated traders had expanded so that their respective products were now in competition. The doctrine also acknowledged the practice of goodwill being divided amongst multiple successors to the original owner. The doctrine of honest concurrent use allowed trade marks to be protected when their use was not initially deceptive but when a risk of deception had subsequently arisen. (See GE Trade Mark [1973] RPC 297).

Criteria to be taken into account when applying s 34(1) of the 1955 Act (the equivalent of para 44(3)(a) of the 1995 Act) were set out by Lord Tomlin in Pirie’s Application (1933) 50 RPC 147. In John Fitton & Company Limited's application for a trade mark (1949) 66 RPC 110 the Assistant Comptroller refined those criteria to a list of five, namely:

  1. the degree of confusion likely between the trade marks in question

  2. whether instances of confusion have in fact occurred

  3. the honesty or otherwise of the concurrent use

  4. the extent of use in duration, area and volume

  5. the relative inconvenience that would be caused to the respective parties if the applicant's trade mark should be registered or not registered.

The five criteria have been applied by Australian courts (McCormick & Company Inc v McCormick [2000] FCA 1335), but are not necessarily exhaustive (see Electrix Ltd.’s application [1957] RPC 369).

The relevant date for determining honest concurrent use under para 44(3)(a) is the priority date of the application. However, evidence of events (such as confusion in the marketplace) occurring after that date may assist in determining the likelihood of confusion at filing (see Tivo Inc. v Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 252).

Note that for the purposes of s 44(3)(b) ‘other circumstances’, the Full Bench of the Federal Court in Trident Seafoods Corporation v Trident Foods Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 100 (Trident) held at [83] that the relevant date for determining exercise of the Registrar’s discretion was the time when the discretion was exercised. However, the court did not consider the relevant date applicable to s 44(3)(a). Subsequent to the decision, Markovic J in Community First Credit Union Limited v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited [2019] FCA 1553 at [30] held that the rights of the parties are determined at the date of the application. In view of the uncertainty, it is the Registrar’s position that honest concurrent use should be considered as at the date of the application, whereas consideration of other circumstances should occur at the date the discretion is exercised.  

Amended Reasons

Amended Reason Date Amended

Content updated.

Update hyperlinks

Back to top