• mse-big-new-banner-03-17-2016-416616a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-114
  • Print
  • 05 02 2016 429716a-cig-clearchoice-banner-902x177
  • cartridgewebsite-com-big-banner-02-09-07-2016
  • big-banner-ad_2-sean
  • 7035-overstock-banner-902x177
  • 2toner1-2
  • mse-big-banner-new-03-17-2016-416716a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-212
  • 4toner4
  • Video and Film


 user 2007-12-17 at 2:12:00 pm Views: 52
  • #21109

    Brother Wins Case Against Aussie Drum Distributor
    December 2007 Brother Industries in Nagoya, Japan, announced that Brother Industries, Ltd. and Brother International (Aust.) Pty Ltd. (collectively “Brother”) have been successful in a Federal Court case against Dynamic Supplies Pty Ltd (“Dynamic Supplies”), one of Australia’s largest distributors of computer consumables.In 2004, Brother notified Dynamic Supplies that it was infringing Brother’s trade marks by selling OEM printer drum units (which has different specification than that of Brother-branded printer drum units) as Brother-branded printer drum units.

    Dynamic Supplies rejected Brother’s allegations and the matter was then taken to court.The Federal Court found that Dynamic Supplies imported and sold unbranded, OEM printer drum units in counterfeit Brother packaging. Those printer drum units were sold by Dynamic Supplies as Brother-branded DR200 printer drum units.

    The Court made two significant rulings in this case.
    1 A reseller is not permitted to apply a manufacturer’s trade mark to OEM goods that the manufacturer did not intend to be sold under its trade mark.
    2 If OEM goods pass through the supply chain of a subsidiary of a trade mark owner as branded goods but without the authorization of the trade mark owner itself, it does not follow that the trade mark owner will be deemed to have authorized the use of its trade mark on those goods by virtue of the conduct of its subsidiary. For the use of the trade mark to be authorized, it must be applied with the direct authority of the trade mark owner itself.