{"id":10165,"date":"2022-01-07T06:11:12","date_gmt":"2022-01-07T06:11:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/?p=10165"},"modified":"2022-01-07T06:12:44","modified_gmt":"2022-01-07T06:12:44","slug":"agl-vs-greenpeace-australia-pacific-limited-trademark-infringement-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/agl-vs-greenpeace-australia-pacific-limited-trademark-infringement-case\/","title":{"rendered":"AGL vs Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited: Trademark infringement case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"has-drop-cap\">In this blog, we\nwill discuss the case of AGL Energy Limited vs Greenpeace Australia Pacific\nLimited to get insights into trademark and copyright infringement. In this\ncase, AGL prosecuted Greenpeace for the infringement of its copyright and\nTrademark about posters made by Greenpeace with AGL&#8217;s logo. The AGL has used\nmuch visual media on distinct platforms using the AGL&#8217;s Logo with the Tagline\n&#8220;Australia&#8217;s Greatest Liability&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Intellectual\nproperty rights are considered important assets of any organization; in the\npresent matter, AGL Energy Limited vs Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited is\nthe best example of trademark and copyright infringement. Scroll down to check\nthe critical analysis of AGL Energy Limited vs Greenpeace Australia Pacific\nLimited.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_65 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-light-blue ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<label for=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-item-6a54d08856c00\" class=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-label\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/label><input type=\"checkbox\"  id=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-item-6a54d08856c00\"  aria-label=\"Toggle\" \/><nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/agl-vs-greenpeace-australia-pacific-limited-trademark-infringement-case\/#Facts_of_the_case\" title=\"Facts of the case\">Facts of the case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/agl-vs-greenpeace-australia-pacific-limited-trademark-infringement-case\/#Argument_by_the_Parties\" title=\"Argument by the Parties&nbsp;\">Argument by the Parties&nbsp;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/agl-vs-greenpeace-australia-pacific-limited-trademark-infringement-case\/#Examination_and_Judgement_of_the_Court\" title=\"Examination\nand Judgement of the Court\">Examination\nand Judgement of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/agl-vs-greenpeace-australia-pacific-limited-trademark-infringement-case\/#Conclusion\" title=\"Conclusion&nbsp;\">Conclusion&nbsp;<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_the_case\"><\/span>Facts of the case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>To give you some\ncontext, Greenpeace initiated an advertising campaign targeting AGL, following\nthe release of a report commissioned by Greenpeace raising concerns about AGL&#8217;s\ncontinuous operation in coal-burning power stations concerning its commitment\nto renewable energy targets. With altered taglines like &#8220;Generating\nPollution for Generations&#8221; and &#8220;Still Australia&#8217;s Biggest Climate\nPolluter,&#8221; these ads replicated the graphics of AGL&#8217;s ads. The adverts mocked\nthe AGL logo by referring to it as &#8220;Australia&#8217;s Greatest Liability.&#8221;\nThe advertising mocked the AGL logo by referring to the company like AGL.\n&#8220;Australia&#8217;s Greatest Liability&#8221; is a phrase. AGL filed a lawsuit\nagainst Greenpeace in Court just two days after beginning the ad campaign.\nRather than hearing AGL&#8217;s interlocutory injunction application, the Court\nproceeded with the ultimate hearing of AGL&#8217;s claim in less than a month.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Argument_by_the_Parties\"><\/span>Argument by the Parties&nbsp;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Argument by\nGreenpeace-&nbsp;<\/strong>Greenpeace has claimed that they did not use AGL&#8217;s logo as a\ntrademark, their usage of it could not be considered an infringement. In other\nwords, they did not intend for their use of AGL&#8217;s logo to be recognized as a\nsource of identification for AGL&#8217;s goods and services. Furthermore, because it\nwas used for &#8220;parody or satire&#8221; or &#8220;criticism or review,&#8221;\nthe modified logo fell under the exception of &#8220;fair dealing&#8221; and is a\ncopyrighted work.<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>AGL&#8217;s argument<\/strong>&nbsp;has\nindicated that it did not wish to intervene in Greenpeace&#8217;s information for\ndissemination or the public debate surrounding the issue. However, it is\nattempting to prevent its changed logo from being used in Greenpeace campaign\nmaterials. Because the original logo is a registered trademark and an artistic\nwork under copyright law, AGL claims that such use is trademark and copyright\ninfringement. Furthermore, it stated that its registration, among other things,\ncovers educational activities related to the environment; so, Greenpeace is\nunable to use the environmental mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Examination_and_Judgement_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Examination\nand Judgement of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Since the <strong>Australian Federal Court<\/strong><sup><a class=\"text-primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.fedcourt.gov.au\/\"><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/sup> took the side of Greenpeace, which ruled that a trademark can only be violated if it is used concerning the goods and services protected by the <a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/trademark-registration\" class=\"text-primary\"><strong>trademark registration<\/strong><\/a>. As a result, Greenpeace did not utilize AGL&#8217;s logo in connection with the goods and services it claimed were protected by AGL&#8217;s trademark registration. Under both trademark and copyright law, using a company logo for environmental activism or to protest against climate change is reasonably acceptable if the use is for the actual purpose of criticism, parody, or satire. The Court also noted that using corporate trademarks for criticism or review does not automatically come within the fair dealing exception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The Court noted the\nfollowings:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol><li>The contested works must be objectively assessed from the standpoint of an average person and how they would interpret such contested works if they were exposed to them. Subjective factors, including alleged infringer belief that the said works fall in the category of satire or parody, are not relevant.<\/li><li>Even if the impugned works have many goals, such as engaging in satire or parody while entertaining, bringing about change, or doing news reporting, exceptions like satire or parody are still applied.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The Court concludes that\nthere is no copyright infringement as follows:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol><li>Sarcasm and scorn are all natural parts of parody and satire, and just because such work causes harm to the copyright owner does not mean it is &#8220;unfair.&#8221; Even though Greenpeace internal documents indicated the organization&#8217;s intention to label the AGL brand &#8220;toxic,&#8221; the Court dismissed it as &#8220;colourful language, perhaps rhetorical hype of the type commonly used in advertising and also environmental campaigning that would aid Greenpeace in criticizing AGL&#8217;s conduct and provoking debate.&#8221;<\/li><li>The nature of the corporate logo work; Greenpeace uses the whole logo (work) without transforming it, which does not make work &#8220;unfair.&#8221;<\/li><li>Even though AGL&#8217;s logo has a strong reputation, copyright only protects the expression of the logo, not the brand&#8217;s reputation. The damage done to AGL was caused by the content of the commercial campaign, not by the usage of its logo.<\/li><li>According to each advertisement, Greenpeace is the originator of such a campaign, and no logical, sensible person would view it otherwise.<\/li><li>As per the court view, Greenpeace is a non-profit organization and not considered the competitor of AGL.&nbsp;<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Therefore, in this matter of AGL Energy Limited vs Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited court dismissed the claim for <a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/trademark-infringement\" class=\"text-primary\"><strong>Trademark infringement<\/strong><\/a>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion&nbsp;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>After reviewing the matter, we conclude that AGL Energy Limited vs Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited. Using a company&#8217;s logo for information purposes directly generates income while also generating goodwill and brand value for the company. Unless it comes squarely within the scope of the exceptions, which is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, such use without authorization is copyright infringement. As stated in AGL vs Greenpeace, not all materials fell except fair dealing because the intended usage did not reflect that. Copyright will always be a useful weapon for protecting and restoring brand value and reputation regardless of what else is said. Assume that any advertising is fraudulent or provides inaccurate and misleading information. Still, the Brand owners can sue for trademark or copyright infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our Article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/know-about-fluid-trademarks\/\">Everything You Need to Know About Fluid Trademarks\n<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In this blog, we will discuss the case of AGL Energy Limited vs Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited to get insights into trademark and copyright infringement. In this case, AGL prosecuted Greenpeace for the infringement of its copyright and Trademark about posters made by Greenpeace with AGL&#8217;s logo. The AGL has used much visual media on [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":10167,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[72],"tags":[959],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10165"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10165"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10165\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10172,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10165\/revisions\/10172"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10167"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}