Bytedance Ltd v TicToc Online Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2023] ATMO 16
•10 February 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bytedance Ltd v TicToc Online Pty Ltd [2023] ATMO 16
[2023] ATMO 16
10 February 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an application by Bytedance Ltd for registration of a trade mark, opposed by Tic Toc Online Pty Ltd. The matter came before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Louise Tuohy.
The Registrar was required to determine whether to register the trade mark, having regard to the grounds of opposition raised by Tic Toc Online Pty Ltd. Specifically, the Registrar had to consider the extent to which any of those grounds had been established.
The Registrar found that Tic Toc Online Pty Ltd had established a ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act in relation to some of the goods and services specified in Bytedance Ltd's application. However, none of the other grounds of opposition were established. Following this finding, the Registrar indicated an intention to refuse registration unless the specification of goods and services was amended. Bytedance Ltd subsequently amended the specification, and an endorsement was added that provisions of paragraph 44(4) applied. The Registrar then determined that the trade mark could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal. As both parties had achieved some success, the Registrar declined to award costs.
The Registrar was required to determine whether to register the trade mark, having regard to the grounds of opposition raised by Tic Toc Online Pty Ltd. Specifically, the Registrar had to consider the extent to which any of those grounds had been established.
The Registrar found that Tic Toc Online Pty Ltd had established a ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act in relation to some of the goods and services specified in Bytedance Ltd's application. However, none of the other grounds of opposition were established. Following this finding, the Registrar indicated an intention to refuse registration unless the specification of goods and services was amended. Bytedance Ltd subsequently amended the specification, and an endorsement was added that provisions of paragraph 44(4) applied. The Registrar then determined that the trade mark could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal. As both parties had achieved some success, the Registrar declined to award costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Fed Square Pty Ltd v Federation IP Pty Ltd
[2015] ATMO 42
Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd
[1994] FCA 936