Athleta (ITM) Inc. v Ally Fashion Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an opposition filed by Athleta (ITM) Inc. against the registration of a trade mark by Ally Fashion Pty Ltd. The opposition was brought under section 52 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The decision was made by Anne Makrigiorgos.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's trade mark should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition under sections 42(b), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider if the proposed mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to existing registered trade marks, or if it was likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The court found that none of the grounds of opposition were established. In relation to section 42(b), the court determined that the applicant had not demonstrated that the use of the respondent's mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. For section 44, the court concluded that the respondent's mark was not substantially identical or deceptively similar to any of the opponent's registered trade marks. Similarly, under section 60, the court found no evidence to support a claim of deception or confusion arising from the use of the respondent's mark due to its reputation.

Consequently, the opposition was dismissed, and the trade mark was permitted to proceed to registration.