Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited (Aristocrat) sought to register three designs for gaming machines under the Designs Act 2003 (Cth). The Central Adjudication Office (CAO) refused the registration, holding that the application contained more than one design and Aristocrat had not complied with the pre-registration formalities. Aristocrat appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), arguing that the CAO incorrectly applied the definition of a complex product and misunderstood the meaning of disassembly and re-assembly. The AAT considered whether the CAO properly determined that the application contained more than one design and if Aristocrat had complied with the pre-registration formalities check under sections 39 and 40 of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth). The AAT found that the CAO correctly determined that the application contained more than one design. The AAT noted that the Act requires that each product to which a design relates belongs to the same Locarno Agreement class. The AAT found that the three designs were not all in the same Locarno Agreement class and therefore, the application contained more than one design. The AAT also found that Aristocrat did not comply with the pre-registration formalities check under sections 39 and 40 of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth). The AAT noted that the Act requires that the number of designs shown in the representations corresponds with the number of designs identified by the applicant. The AAT found that Aristocrat did not identify the three designs as being separate designs in the application and therefore, did not comply with the pre-registration formalities check. The AAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the CAO's decision to refuse the registration of the designs.