AB SCA Finans and SCA Hygiene Products AB v Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha (Also Known as Uni-Charm Corporation)

Case

[2012] ATMO 63

13 July 2012


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
AB SCA Finans and SCA Hygiene Products AB v Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha (Also Known as Uni-Charm Corporation) [2012] ATMO 63 [2012] ATMO 63 13 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an opposition to the registration of a trade mark. The applicant was Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha, and the opponents were AB SCA Finans and SCA Hygiene Products AB. The dispute arose from Uni-Charm's application to register the trade mark "BODYFIT" in Australia for feminine hygiene products. The opponents, who were part of the global SCA Group, argued that they owned and used the trade mark "BODYFIT" in Australia for similar goods, and that its registration by Uni-Charm would cause confusion and dilution. The decision was made by Iain Thompson, a Hearing Officer in the Trade Marks Hearings.

The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the opponents had established grounds for opposing the registration of Uni-Charm's trade mark. Specifically, the Hearing Officer had to determine if the opponents' use and ownership of the "BODYFIT" trade mark in Australia for feminine hygiene products was sufficient to prevent Uni-Charm from registering the same mark for the same goods, considering the potential for deception or confusion among consumers. The Hearing Officer also had to consider the provisions of section 55 of the relevant Act, which outlines the Registrar's decision-making process in trade mark oppositions.

The Hearing Officer's reasoning was based on the evidence presented by both parties. The opponents provided statutory declarations detailing their extensive use and ownership of the "BODYFIT" trade mark in Australia for feminine hygiene products since 2006, asserting it was the leading brand in the Australian market. They also demonstrated that the SCA Group, to which they belonged, owned numerous well-known trade marks for similar products in Australia. The Hearing Officer found that the opponents had successfully established their grounds for opposition. Consequently, pursuant to section 55 of the Act, the Hearing Officer decided to refuse the registration of Uni-Charm's application.

The Hearing Officer ordered that the application to register the trade mark "BODYFIT" by Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha be refused. As the opponents had succeeded in their opposition, they were awarded their costs against the applicant, to be assessed on the official scale.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Intellectual Property

  • Commercial Law

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

20

Statutory Material Cited

0

Pfizer Products Inc v Karam [2006] FCA 1663