Australian Olympic Committee Inc v Calder

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Olympic Committee Inc v Calder [2000] FCA 943

AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE INC v  ALAN ARCHIBALD CALDER
N 603 of 2000

SACKVILLE J
12 JULY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 603 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE INC
APPLICANT

AND:

ALAN ARCHIBALD CALDER
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 JULY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The time for lodging of an appeal from the decision of the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks, in relation to Trade Marks application 775469(39) filed in the name of Alan Archibald Calder, be extended until 4 pm on 14 July 2000.

2.   The solicitors for the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion, as taxed or agreed.

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

N 603 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE INC
APPLICANT

AND:

ALAN ARCHIBALD CALDER
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE:

12 JULY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Application

  1. This is an application by the Australian Olympic Committee Inc (“AOC”), made pursuant to Federal Court Rules (“FCR”) O 58, r 4(3), to extend the time for the filing of a notice of appeal from a decision of a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks given on 14 April 2000.  By that decision, the Registrar’s delegate directed that an application by Alan Archibald Calder (the respondent to the application in this Court) to register a trade mark in respect of travel arrangements and tours in class 39 of Schedule 1 to the Trade Marks  Regulations, proceed to registration.  Mr Calder’s application had been opposed by the AOC on the ground that the mark was deceptively similar to the Olympic symbol, an outline of which is set out in the Schedule to the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 (Cth). By s 5(1) of that Act the AOC is taken to be the owner of the copyright in the Olympic symbol.

  2. FCR O 58 provides for an appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks.  Any such appeal must be instituted within twenty-one days after the date of the decision appealed from or within such further time as the Court, on application, fixes: O 58 r 4(2).  FCR O 58 r 4(3) provides as follows:

    “Application may be made to the Court to extend the time for filing, by notice of motion:

    (a)made at any time – unless a law of the Commonwealth provides otherwise; and

    (b)supported by affidavit showing special circumstances.”

    No Commonwealth law “provides otherwise” for the purposes of FCR O 58 r 4(3).

    The Course of Events

  3. The AOC’s solicitors, Browne & Co, were notified of the delegate’s decision by a letter dated 14 April 2000 which, for some reason, was not received by them until 19 April 2000.  The…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Olympic Committee Inc v Calder and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2000] FCA 943
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Olympic Committee Inc (AOC) sought an extension of time to appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks in relation to a trade marks application filed by Alan Archibald Calder. The dispute involved the interpretation of the Trade Marks Act and the relevant case law concerning the grounds for appeal. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the AOC's application for an extension of time should be granted and if so, for how long.

The primary legal issue was whether the AOC had demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension of time to appeal the Registrar’s decision. The AOC argued that they had not received timely notification of the Registrar’s decision and that this delay was beyond their control. They further contended that they had acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing the appeal. The Court needed to assess the AOC's evidence and arguments to determine whether these circumstances warranted an extension of time.

The Court found that the AOC had provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that they were not notified of the Registrar’s decision in a timely manner and that this delay was beyond their control. The AOC had acted with reasonable diligence in attempting to contact the Registrar and in pursuing the appeal once they were aware of the decision. The Court was satisfied that the AOC had met the threshold for an extension of time and granted the application, extending the time until 4 pm on 14 July 2000. The Court also ordered that the AOC’s solicitors pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for lodging of an appeal from the decision of the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks, in relation to Trade Marks application 775469(39) filed in the name of Alan Archibald Calder, be extended until 4 pm on 14 July 2000.

2. The solicitors for the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion, as taxed or agreed.

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

SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.