Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd v Amurt Inc

Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd (the opponent) opposed the registration of a trade mark by Amurt Inc (the applicant). The dispute concerned the opponent's claim to ownership and control over the name "Ananda Marga" in Australia, which the applicant contested. The matter was heard by Bianca Irgang, a Hearing Officer at Trade Marks Hearings.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the opponent had established a sufficient reputation in Australia under section 60 of the relevant Act to justify opposing the applicant's trade mark application. This involved determining whether the opponent had demonstrated that the name "Ananda Marga" was recognised in Australia in connection with its organisation and activities, and whether the applicant's proposed use of the mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The Hearing Officer considered evidence from both parties, including declarations from Colm Largey for the opponent and Dieter Dambiec for the applicant. The opponent presented evidence detailing the establishment and global reach of the Ananda Marga organisation, including the formation of its Australian branch, AMURT Ltd., and its subordinate relationship to the opponent. This evidence was supported by correspondence indicating the opponent's investment in and ownership of the "Ananda Marga" trade mark in Australia. The applicant's evidence questioned the validity of these claims and asserted that other entities had used the name "Ananda Marga" independently and prior to the opponent's establishment in Australia, arguing that the opponent lacked control over the name. The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had met the onus of proof regarding its reputation in Australia under section 60.

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer refused to register the applicant's trade mark application and awarded costs against the applicant.