Accenture Global Services GmbH v SanEmpero Group International Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2011] ATMO 77
•11 August 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Accenture Global Services GmbH v SanEmpero Group International Pty Ltd [2011] ATMO 77
[2011] ATMO 77
11 August 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition proceeding before a Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Opponent, SanEmpero Group International Pty Ltd, opposed the registration of the trade mark "ACCENTRO" by the Applicant, Accenture Global Services GmbH. The opposition was based on grounds under sections 44 and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth).
The primary legal issue before the Delegate was whether the Opponent had established grounds for opposing the registration of the Applicant's trade mark. Specifically, the Delegate was required to determine if the Opponent had demonstrated a substantial reputation in its own trade mark in Australia prior to the priority date of the Applicant's application, and if the use of the Applicant's mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion in the marketplace, thereby establishing the ground of opposition under section 60 of the Act. The Delegate also considered the appropriate standard of proof in trade mark opposition proceedings, noting the general principle that the standard should not differ from that applied by the courts on appeal from the Registrar.
The Delegate found that the Opponent had discharged the onus of establishing a substantial reputation in its trade mark in Australia before the priority date of the Applicant's trade mark. Given the extent of this reputation, the Delegate concluded that the use of the Applicant's trade mark "ACCENTRO" on the claimed services would likely result in deception or confusion in the marketplace. Consequently, the ground of opposition under section 60 of the Act was established on the balance of probabilities.
The Delegate refused to register the trade mark application no. 1247659: Accentro. The Applicant was ordered to pay the Opponent's costs to the extent allowed under Schedule 8 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995*.
The primary legal issue before the Delegate was whether the Opponent had established grounds for opposing the registration of the Applicant's trade mark. Specifically, the Delegate was required to determine if the Opponent had demonstrated a substantial reputation in its own trade mark in Australia prior to the priority date of the Applicant's application, and if the use of the Applicant's mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion in the marketplace, thereby establishing the ground of opposition under section 60 of the Act. The Delegate also considered the appropriate standard of proof in trade mark opposition proceedings, noting the general principle that the standard should not differ from that applied by the courts on appeal from the Registrar.
The Delegate found that the Opponent had discharged the onus of establishing a substantial reputation in its trade mark in Australia before the priority date of the Applicant's trade mark. Given the extent of this reputation, the Delegate concluded that the use of the Applicant's trade mark "ACCENTRO" on the claimed services would likely result in deception or confusion in the marketplace. Consequently, the ground of opposition under section 60 of the Act was established on the balance of probabilities.
The Delegate refused to register the trade mark application no. 1247659: Accentro. The Applicant was ordered to pay the Opponent's costs to the extent allowed under Schedule 8 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995*.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. v Flowerscorp Pty Ltd [2013] ATMO 11
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Hills Industries Ltd v Bitek Pty Ltd
[2011] FCA 94