Logo is a ‘label’ and cannot be used to prevent parallel imports - The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v Ziliani Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 49

David Yates, Partner, and Tom Glasson, Lawyer of Allens Arthur Robinson report on The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v Ziliani Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 49, in which a copyright owner was unable to rely on its copyright in a logo to prevent the parallel importation of goods to which the logo was affixed.

According to David Yates and Tom Glasson, if a logo constitutes a label affixed to an article, it may be a ‘non-infringing accessory’ for the purpose of section 44C of the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), meaning that the owner of copyright in the logo may be unable to rely on this to prevent parallel importation of the article. An embroidered logo may be considered a ‘corresponding design’ for the copyright work reproduced in the logo for the purpose of the copyright/design overlap because its method of affixation onto clothing affects the shape of the fabric and can constitute visual features of shape or configuration.

Logo is a ‘label’ and cannot be used to prevent parallel imports


Other Posts