Trademarks &amp; International dealings
<p>It is my limited understanding that when a trademark is registered - It is only country specific.</p>
<p>However in this <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/victorian-cafe-faces-david-goliath-battle-over-name-with-french-culinary-school/3c94cd9d-bcdd-4fec-9a62-0b10ed24db85" rel="nofollow noreferrer">case</a> an Australian cafe was sued by a French culinary school due to a similar name which they state could lead to 'brand confusion' and thus infringed on their trademark.
The Culinary School won.</p>
<p>Although I'm not sure if the cafe was simply ignorant and didn't register their trademark and the school simply jumped on that opportunity and therefore forced a win - Outside of that kind of scenario (again with my limited knowledge). I don't see how a foreign entity could pursue that?</p>

<p>A trademark registration does indeed protect a mark only in the courtly where it is registered. However, protection is not limited to businesses headquartered in the country of registration. Firms doing business internationally often register a trademark in multiple countries, sometimes very many countries. It is possible that &quot;Le Cordon Bleu&quot; was registered in Australia. (Indeed it turns out to be so registered, see below.)</p>
<p>Also, in some countries a trademark can be protected to a degree merely by use, without any registration. That is true in the US. I have not yet checked if it is true in Australia. If the plaintiff's mark was in actual use in Australia, that might be enough to get them a favorable trademark decision there. It will be Australian law that will be relevant here, not really international law.</p>
<p>It seems that the school &quot;Le Cordon Bleu&quot; objected to a restaurant called called &quot;Gordon Bleu&quot;. That sounds to me similar enough that I think a US court might well award damages and/or issue an injunction, depending on the detailed facts, and the dates of usage (first usage usually wins).</p>
<p>The news story does not give the formal name of the case. Without the opinion or other case documents I cannot tell just what happened or on what legal basis in this specific case. I will search and update this answer if I find relevant information.</p>
<p>A search reveals that Le Cordon Bleu International B.V. owns several registrations in Australia to the trademark &quot;Le Cordon Bleu&quot; including:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/429369?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer"># 429369</a> for Class 8: <em>Hand tools and implements (hand operated); cutlery, forks and spoons; side arms; razors</em></li>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/429371?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer"># 429371</a> for Class 38: <em>Communication; press agencies, radio, telegraph and telephone communications; teleprinting; transmission of messages and telegram</em></li>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/429377?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer"># 429377</a> for Class 25: <em>Clothing, footwear, headgear</em></li>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/429378?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer">#429378</a> for Class 24: <em>Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed and table covers</em></li>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/429379?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer"># 429379</a> for Class 21: <em>Household or kitchen utensils and containers ...</em></li>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/429380?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer"># 429380</a> for  Class 16: <em>Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matters; bookbinding materials; photographs, stationery ...</em></li>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/429381?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer"># 429381</a> for Class 9: <em>Scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments ...</em></li>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/485577?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer"># 485577</a> for a logo to be used on Class 29: <em>Fresh meat, fresh fish, fresh poultry and fresh game; ...</em></li>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/485579?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer"># 485579</a> for the same logo to be used on Class 31: <em>Agricultural, horticultural and forestry products and grains</em></li>
<li><a href="https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/485580?q=Le+Cordon+Bleu" rel="nofollow noreferrer"># 485580</a> for the same logo to be used on Class 32: <em>Mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks;...</em></li>
</ul>
<p>and some 50 other registered marks for use of the words 'Le Cordon Bleu&quot;, the logo, or variants of these on various classes of goods and services. Most of these Australian trademark registrations seem to date from 1985 and are currently in force.</p>
<p>Thus there was nothing unusual in this case. A firm with a trademark (in fact 60 trade marks) registered in Australia for over 35 years objected to use in a related category of a confusingly similar mark, that seems to have been intended to play off the registered mark. This sounds like a routine trademark enforcement action.</p>
<p>Also. according to the Wikipedia article <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_trade_mark_law" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Australian trade mark law&quot;</a> Australia supports &quot;common-law use-based rights&quot; as well as statutory rights under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (and previous acts). This means that in Australia, as in the US, a degree of protection can be obtained through use alone (in Australia), even without registration.</p>

international trademark australia