Case: Woolworths Ltd v BP Plc (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 132 ; (2006) 154 FCR 97
Outcome: applied
his Honour said at [22]: In my opinion, borrowing further from the field of patents in this respect is impermissible, to adopt the word used by Finkelstein J [in BP Plc v Woolworths Ltd [2004] FCA 1362 ; (2004) 62 IPR 545]. Trade marks and patents are different species of intellectual property and have a different history. A general desire for uniformity cannot control construction of the statute governing each. ... [26] I am faced with the clear words of the statute, on one hand, and the opinions of various judges, on the other. There is no binding Full Court authority. I cannot find any instance where a single judge has actually applied the higher standard. In my opinion, in this case, comity does not demand that I depart from my view as to the meaning of the statute. Section 41(5) permits the registration of trade marks that are not, by their inherent qualities, sufficiently adapted to distinguish, but which have as at the priority date in fact acquired a capability to distinguish the relevant goods: see Austereo [2004] FCA 968 ; 61 IPR 257 ; see also Clark 111 CLR at 515; British Sugar [1996] RPC 281 at 306; Nestle [2006] FCA 782 ; 154 FCR 165 at [29] . In other words, s 41(5) recognises that marks which are insufficiently inherently adapted to distinguish may nevertheless by their use have become distinctive in the minds of consumers so that they will be able to "do the job of distinguishing" the applicant's goods, that is, they will in fact serve as a badge or an indicator of origin. Accordingly, under s 41(5) an applicant relying on use prior to the priority date will need to point to evidence that the mark has been used as a trade mark , so as to have acquired the requisite capability to distinguish the applicant's goods: see, in the context of s 41(6), Woolworths Ltd v BP Plc (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 132 ; (2006) 154 FCR 97 at [72] and [77] ( BP (No 2) ); Ocean Spray [2000] FCA 177 ; 47 IPR 579 at [38] - [41] , in particular [40]. Guylian's submissions The Registrar makes two main submissions about the survey evidence. First, it says the results fail to establish that consumers see the seahorse shape as a badge of origin. It referred to BP (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 132 ; 154 FCR 97 and British Sugar [1996] RPC 281 , where surveys indicating 85% and 60% recognition of the mark in suit nevertheless failed to demonstrate distinctiveness. Those cases, it said, show that there is a difference between mere association and the perception of a sign as a trade mark. Evidence of an association between a sign and a manufacturer, even a high one, will not necessarily mean that consumers rely on the sign to identify the origin of the goods. Here, the survey question tested association and no more. It did not test whether consumers have in fact come to perceive and understand the seahorse shape as a trade mark, by, for example, asking whether or not respondents believed that the shape belonged to one particular manufacturer and, if so, whether they could identify the manufacturer. Secondly, the Registrar relied on the survey results themselves, referring to the fact that (1) less than half of the respondents associated the shape with Guylian (or, putting it the other way, over half did not associate it with Guylian) and, (2) of those that did associate it with a particular manufacturer, approximately 25% associated it with someone other than Guylian. While the degree of association with an applicant's goods may in itself be relevant to the overall assessment whether the mark has acquired a capacity to distinguish, the results here, said the Registar, are manifestly insufficient so as to be satisfied that the shape alone distinguishes Guylian's goods in the minds of the chocolate buying public. Resolution In BP (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 132 ; 154 FCR 97 , the Full Court of the Federal Court held that BP Plc (BP) had failed to establish pursuant to s 41(6) that it had used a particular shade of green as a trade mark, either by itself or as the predominant colour in its branding. Two aspects of their Honour's reasoning are instructive. First, the Court took into account survey evidence indicating, on a weighted basis, that 85% of respondents identified BP when they were asked to look at a picture of a building (a service station) which was coloured substantially in green and were asked to describe what they saw. In considering an expert's conclusion that this showed a "strong association" between green and BP, the Court stated at [117]: This conclusion is hardly surprising. Green had been one of BP's company colours since at least 1956. After 1989 it had been used as the predominant colour with yellow. In particular, in circumstances where there were only a few oil companies, where all have used colour historically to distinguish themselves, where BP has been the only company before 1995 to use green in that way, it is hardly surprising that people shown this stimulus would associate the green service station with BP service stations which have been coloured with a predominant green and accompanying yellow. That association does not lead to the conclusion that the use of colour from 1989 has included use, as a trade mark, of either green alone, or green as the predominant colour accompanied by any other colour. The mere fact that consumers associate green with BP does not, in our view, satisfy the test of distinctiveness required by s 41(6). Evidence of promotion and use does not, without more, demonstrate distinctiveness: see Blount Incv Registrar of Trade Marks at [61G], citing with approval Jacob J in British Sugar Plc v James Robertson &amp; Sons Ltd at 286 and 302; and Koninklijbe Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (200) FCR 90 ... at [13]. It is necessary for BP to establish that the association is referable to the use of the mark as a trade mark. The learned authors of Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (14th ed, Maxwell Ltd, UK, 2005, at [8 025]) state, albeit in the European context, that to establish distinctiveness through use the proprietor must have done something in its use to identify the sign as being a trade mark; the use of a sign, without more, does not necessarily create the perception that the products originate from a particular trade source : compare Unilever Plc's Trade Mark Applications [2003] RPC 35 at [31]. (Emphasis added.) Finally, I have had regard to the survey evidence, and the expert evidence of Mr Callaghan, which indicates that a significant proportion of the survey respondents were able to identify Guylian when they were shown the seahorse shape. However I am of the view that this association on the whole is likely to be referable to Guylian's sale of the sea shell and seahorse shaped chocolates, over a long period of time, under the banner of the distinctive "Guylian" and "G" trade marks, rather than to the shape itself being used as a trade mark. The cases confirm that association evidence on its own does not prove distinctiveness; the evidence must establish that the public has been educated to understand the sign as an identifier of the origin of the goods: see BP (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 132 ; 154 FCR 97 and Unilever [2003] RPC 35. The Full Court's observations to this effect in BP (No 2) are just as relevant to a consideration of use under s 41(5) as they are to s 41(6). In essence, the survey in this case tested respondents' ability to recognise a shape and associate it with a manufacturer or brand. It tested "brand recognition", as Mr Callaghan suggested; "the ability of a consumer to confirm prior exposure to a brand when presented with one of the brand's identity elements". When regard is had to the way the shape has been used, the survey results do not in my view confirm that consumers actually understand the shape as an indicator of the origin of the goods. The results plainly show a large degree of public recognition of the shape, but as Jacob J said in Unilever [2003] RPC 35 at 662: "[W]hat has not been proved is that any member of the public would rely upon the appearance alone to identify the goods. They recognise it but do not treat it as a trade mark". In any event, I agree with the Registrar's submission that the results tend to confirm the view I have already come to that the shape has not been used as a trade mark, because almost half the respondents were in fact unable to identify the shape with any particular brand or manufacturer. Two other matters should be noted about the survey results. Out of those respondents who did associate the shape with a particular brand or manufacturer, almost a quarter believed it was manufactured by someone other than Guylian. Further, Mr Callaghan also attributed the association to more than just the shape itself. He said it was likely that many associations would have been based on recognition of the overall image and not simply its shape, for example colour and a perception of the texture of the object. I agree with the Registrar's submission that the marbled appearance on the surface of the shape is also likely to have contributed. As Guylian seeks registration of the shape alone, it must be able to demonstrate that the shape, regardless of its colour for example, has become distinctive of its goods. This is important, because it is the shape alone over which Guylian seeks a monopoly. In the circumstances as described by Mr Callaghan, it seems to me that the probative value of the association evidence is to some extent diminished by the way many of the respondents are likely to have made their association.