Tub happy (Footnote 1). That's how I'm feeling. It's Friday afternoon, my niece is getting married tonight,

and on the weekend I have to make no more work choices (Footnote 2). It's been a difficult week

pondering the registrability of several trade marks for new ventures. Now the week's almost over I'm reflecting.

Footnote 1:  Back in 1956 the trade mark "Tub Happy" was held by the High Court of Australia to be merely an allusive reference to clothes which would launder well, and therefore registrable as a trade mark in respect of clothing. See: Mark Foy's Ltd v Davies Co-Op & Co. Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 190. The decision had 11 numbered paragraphs. Justice Williams in the case said: "Any reference that the words "Tub Happy" have to the character or quality of articles of clothing is very remote. They are in the nature of a coined phrase." So Tub Happy was registered. The case has been a long-standing useful reference for developing good trade marks in the eyes of the law.

Footnote 2: This week the High Court of Australia released its Work Choices decision published here on AustLII. The rtf version as downloaded from that site is about 400 pages. That includes 914 numbered paragraphs with 1,227 footnotes. There are 45 people listed as representation or interveners. As pictured it was a big case. This in a month where I've written three times - here , here and here - about the quantity of business law pages we must read now to keep up.