Body Tease Inc v D & Y International Trading Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2002] ATMO 102
•11 November 2002
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Body Tease Inc v D & Y International Trading Pty Ltd [2002] ATMO 102
[2002] ATMO 102
11 November 2002
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Body Tease Inc v D & Y International Trading Pty Ltd*, the applicant sought to register the trade mark "TORSO DEVICE" for clothing. The opponent, Body Tease Inc, opposed this application, arguing that the mark was deceptively similar to its own registered trade mark "TORSO" and that the applicant's use of "TORSO DEVICE" would likely cause confusion among consumers. The case was heard before a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark "TORSO DEVICE" was deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark "TORSO" for the purposes of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved an assessment of the likelihood of confusion among the relevant class of purchasers.
The delegate considered the opponent's submissions regarding the reputation of its trade mark in Australia. It was noted that the opponent had made sales in Australia for nearly four years prior to the priority date of the application, which was considered significant given the short lifespan of products in the "fun" market. While absolute sales figures were not large, they were deemed significant within a niche market. Evidence was presented that a witness associated the "TORSO DEVICE" with the opponent and would be confused if another party used a similar mark in Australia for clothing. The delegate also took into account the opponent's expenditure on advertising and promotion.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark "TORSO DEVICE" was deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark "TORSO" for the purposes of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved an assessment of the likelihood of confusion among the relevant class of purchasers.
The delegate considered the opponent's submissions regarding the reputation of its trade mark in Australia. It was noted that the opponent had made sales in Australia for nearly four years prior to the priority date of the application, which was considered significant given the short lifespan of products in the "fun" market. While absolute sales figures were not large, they were deemed significant within a niche market. Evidence was presented that a witness associated the "TORSO DEVICE" with the opponent and would be confused if another party used a similar mark in Australia for clothing. The delegate also took into account the opponent's expenditure on advertising and promotion.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Home Focus Development Limited [2016] ATMO 110
Cases Citing This Decision
4
MIS Implants Technologies Ltd v More Group Pty Ltd
[2022] ATMO 215
Ex-Centris Production v 9197-3396 Quebec Inc
[2018] ATMO 156
3M Company v Tish & Sash Cacoroski
[2018] ATMO 97
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
Advantage Rent-a-Car Inc v Advantage Car Rental Pty Ltd
[2001] FCA 683
Dairy Vale Metro Co-op Ltd v Brownes Dairy Ltd
[1981] FCA 63
Dairy Vale Metro Co-op Ltd v Brownes Dairy Ltd
[1981] FCA 63