top of page

Facebook v Clive Palmer - the trade mark showdown over Ausface


Facebook's parent company, Meta Platforms Inc, recently locked horns with Australian mining magnate Clive Palmer’s Mineralogy Pty Ltd.


The battle was over the registration of the trade mark "Ausface," which Palmer apparently plans to use for a new Australian social media platform.


Meta opposed registration of Ausface, and the parties ended up in a hearing before a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.


The saga gives some interesting insight into the commercial drivers and strategies of large corporate trade mark owners.




The Players


On one side, we have Meta Platforms Inc, the behemoth behind Facebook, the world's most popular social media network.


On the other side, Clive Palmer, a controversial Australian businessman known for his... varied business interests and (known to us at least) for his unusual, unnecessarily expensive and frequently unsuccessful trade mark filing strategy.


The Trade Mark in Dispute


Mineralogy Pty Ltd applied to register "Ausface" as a trade mark, covering a broad range of goods and services in all 45 classes.


From compost, manures and fertilisers through to medical and veterinary services, and of course - lace, ribbons and bows - the application covers it all.


This wide scope is a hallmark of Palmer’s strategy, though its effectiveness and purpose remain unclear.


Curiously enough, the application doesn't even specify that it covers social media platform services - outside of the antiquated claim for "providing internet chatrooms and online forums".


Regardless, Meta, perhaps seeing a potential rival in the making, opposed the registration.


Meta argued that "Ausface" would confuse consumers and encroach on Facebook's well-established brand.


The Battle Unfolds


Meta's Stance


Facebook’s extensive global reach and deep-rooted reputation formed the crux of their opposition. Meta contended that "Ausface" was too similar to Facebook and would mislead consumers.


They also argued that Mineralogy had no intention to use the trade mark for the goods and services claimed - not only is the company ostensibly a resources business, but the goods and services claimed in the application looked suspiciously like the general description of each class...


Mineralogy's Defence


Palmer's team defended their broad application, asserting a genuine intention to use the trade mark across diverse classes.


They emphasized that "Ausface" and "Facebook" were distinctly different, both visually and conceptually.


The Decision


The delegate ruled in favour of Palmer. Here's why:


  1. Distinctiveness Matters: The visual and phonetic differences between "Facebook" and "Ausface" were deemed significant. Consumers were unlikely to be confused - particularly given Facebook's high degree of brand recognition.

  2. Intention and Breadth: While Palmer's tactic of applying across all classes is unconventional, it is not inherently wrong. The application itself demonstrated an intent to use the trade mark, which the delegate accepted.

  3. No Risk of Misleading the Public: There was no solid evidence to suggest that "Ausface" would mislead or deceive the public.


Behind the Scenes: Commercial Drivers


The motivations behind this dispute are as intriguing as the legal arguments.


For Meta, the move was likely a defensive one, aiming to block a potential competitor.


For Palmer, the broad trade mark applications hint at a strategic, albeit perplexing, approach to brand protection and expansion.


Takeaway


Clive Palmer’s victory illustrates that even the most unusual applications can withstand opposition if defended robustly.


It goes to show that even when your resources are basically unlimited, you need to have proper grounds to successfully oppose the registration of a potential competitor's trade mark.


Facebook's reputation and undisputed brand recognition even worked against Meta - customers would be more likely to identify differences between marks when one of the marks is as famous as Facebook.


This battle between Meta and Mineralogy is a testament to the intricate dance of legal strategy, brand protection, and market competition.

Opmerkingen


Contact us

Contact us today

Have a question or not sure what you need?

Don't worry - we are here to help.

Simply send us an enquiry and we'll get back to you.

bottom of page