Australia clarifies law on foreign language marks

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Australia clarifies law on foreign language marks

Australia’s High Court outlines the test for the analysis of the distinctiveness of foreign language marks

The trade marks in dispute in the case of Cantarella Bros v Modena Trading were marks for the Italian words for gold ("oro") and five stars ("cinque stelle"). Cantarella, the rights holder, sold coffees marketed under both marks, while Modena imported from Italy coffees using these names.

Cantarella sued Modena for infringement, which in turn cross-claimed for cancellation, arguing that the marks were not capable of distinguishing Cantarella’s goods from others in the market because they were used to denote the quality or character of the goods.

The Federal Court sided with Cantarella, finding that the two marks are sufficiently distinctive and that Modena infringed the marks. Justice Emmett noted that very few consumers in Australia understood the meaning of the words or the allusions to quality stemming from those words.

"The Full Federal Courtfound that these Italian words were commonly understood among coffee traders who see these terms as indicators of quality or character."

On appeal, the Full Federal Court (Justices Mansfield, Jacobson and Gilmour) unanimously overruled the trial decision, finding that the mark lacked distinctiveness. Noting Australia’s “rich cultural and ethnic diversities”, it found that the relevant population the court should be focusing on were coffee traders rather than the general population. Furthermore, it found that these Italian words were commonly understood among coffee traders who see these terms as indicators of quality or character.

The Supreme Court reversed the Full Federal Court’s ruling. In a majority decision (Chief Justice French along with Justices Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel, with Justice Gageler dissenting), it held that the proper test is to consider the “ordinary signification” of a word to the relevant users, whether it is in English or another language.

It found that that even among the coffee trading community, there was not enough evidence that the words carried a reference to the character or quality of the goods. The court found that Modena’s evidence that some Australian coffee traders saw the expression “five star” as an indication of quality or character fell short of proving that “cinque stelle” was understood to be a descriptive term.

Similarly, it found that Modena did not sufficiently prove that honest traders may legitimately wish to use these terms to describe the character or quality of their own goods.

A J L Bannon SC, M Green and Clayton Utz represented Cantarella, while I M Jackman SC, C L Cochrane and Corrs Chambers Westgarth acted for Modena Trading.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article