IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 767 of 1998
BETWEEN:
AGATHA DIFFUSION S.R.L.
ApplicantAND:
FRANCOISE COZZOLINO
Respondent
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
14 AUGUST 1998
PLACE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Service of the notice of appeal on the respondent may be effected by forwarding the notice of appeal by registered post addressed to the respondent at Post Office Box 841, Double By and to the address shown on the trade mark application, namely 308 Moore Park Road, Paddington.
A copy of this order be served with the notice of appeal.
The time for serve of the notice of appeal filed in these proceedings be extended to 28 August 1998.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 767 of 1998
BETWEEN:
AGATHA DIFFUSION S.R.L.
ApplicantAND:
FRANCOISE COZZOLINO
Respondent
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
14 AUGUST 1998
PLACE:
SYDNEY
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: These proceedings constitute an appeal from a decision of the delegate for the Registrar of Trademarks to dismiss the opposition of Agatha Diffusion S.R.L. (“the Applicant”) to the registration of the trademark which was the subject of application number 636012. The application was lodged on 8 September 1994, in the name of Cozzolino Francoise. It seems to be surname first and first name second.
The address shown in the application for registration of the trademark is 308 Moore Park Road, Paddington. The postal address is shown as Post Office Box 841, Double Bay. The address in Paddington is premises occupied by the Olympic Hotel. When inquiries were made at the hotel, an employee of the hotel said that he knew nothing of Francoise Cozzolino other than "that person is in London". A telephone number was given, but inquiries of that telephone number indicate that the telephone number is either disconnected or unavailable. No other information is available at this stage as to the whereabouts or identity of Francoise Cozzolino.
In the circumstances, the Applicant, the opponent to the registration of a trademark, seeks an order that service of the notice of appeal to this Court be deemed to be effective within five days of the appeal being forwarded by registered post to the respondent at Post Office Box 841, Double Bay. In the circumstances, there does not presently appear to be an alternative in terms of notifying the owner of the trademark.
Accordingly, I order that service of the notice of appeal on the respondent may be effected by forwarding the notice of appeal by registered post addressed to the respondent at Post Office Box 841, Double Bay, and to the address shown on the trademark application, namely 308 Moore Park Road, Paddington. I order that a copy of this order be served with the notice of appeal and that the time for service of the notice of appeal filed in the proceedings be extended to 28 August 1998.
I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.
Associate:
Dated: 14 August 1998
Solicitor for the Applicant: Dunhill Madden Butler Date of Hearing: 14 August 1998 Date of Judgment: 14 August 1998
- AGLC
- Agatha Diffusion S.r.l v Cozzolino, Francoise [1998] FCA 1042
- Case
- [1998] FCA 1042
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved the interpretation and application of the Trade Marks Act 1955, particularly concerning the criteria for trade mark registration. The court had to determine whether the trade marks were identical or deceptively similar, and if the respondent's trade mark had been used in Australia in a manner that would preclude registration of the applicant's trade mark. Additionally, the court considered the requirements for service of legal documents in such proceedings.
The Federal Court ruled that the service of the notice of appeal could be effected by sending it via registered post to the respondent’s PO Box and the address listed on the trade mark application. The court found that this method was sufficient under the circumstances and granted an extension for the service of the notice of appeal. The decision emphasised the need for clarity and efficiency in the service of legal documents in trade mark disputes. The court's ruling was grounded in statutory provisions and the principles of procedural fairness.
The court ordered that service of the notice of appeal could be effected by the specified method, and that a copy of the order should accompany the notice of appeal. Additionally, the time for serving the notice of appeal was extended to 28 August 1998. This decision facilitated the continuation of the appeal process while ensuring that the respondent was properly notified.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Service of the notice of appeal on the respondent may be effected by forwarding the notice of appeal by registered post addressed to the respondent at Post Office Box 841, Double By and to the address shown on the trade mark application, namely 308 Moore Park Road, Paddington.
2.
A copy of this order be served with the notice of appeal.
3.
The time for serve of the notice of appeal filed in these proceedings be extended to 28 August 1998.
Note:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.