Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Jervis B Webb International Company
Case
•
[2003] ATMO 82
•23 December 2003
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Jervis B Webb International Company [2003] ATMO 82
[2003] ATMO 82
23 December 2003
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter came before Ian Thompson, Hearing Officer, as a delegate of the Registrar, concerning an application by Jervis B Webb International Company (JBW) to remove the registered trade mark "WebView Livescope" from the register, held by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (CKK). CKK opposed the removal application. JBW argued that it actively markets computer software under the trade mark "WEB VIEW" in the United States and Canada, and its Australian subsidiary, Webb Conveyor Company of Australia Pty Ltd, was ready, willing, and able to market the product in Australia. CKK, however, had used its registered trade mark in Australia since April 1998.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether JBW was a "person aggrieved" by the registration of CKK's trade mark at the time it filed its application for removal. This required determining if JBW had suffered or would suffer a legal or practical disadvantage from CKK's mark remaining on the register. A secondary issue, though not determinative, was the evidence of JBW's use of its trade mark, particularly at the time the non-use application was filed.
The Hearing Officer applied the principles established in *Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds*, emphasizing that the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) aims to create a species of tradeable property connected with actual or contemplated trade. A person seeking to attack a registered mark must demonstrate a genuine connection to trade in the goods or services, not merely a desire to traffic in marks. The evidence presented by JBW regarding its use of "WEB VIEW" in the USA and Canada, and the readiness of its Australian subsidiary, was not sufficiently linked to the time the removal application was filed. Furthermore, there was no affirmative evidence that CKK lacked an intention to use its registered mark at the time of its own registration.
Consequently, the application for removal failed because JBW did not establish that it was a person aggrieved at the relevant time. CKK was awarded its costs.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether JBW was a "person aggrieved" by the registration of CKK's trade mark at the time it filed its application for removal. This required determining if JBW had suffered or would suffer a legal or practical disadvantage from CKK's mark remaining on the register. A secondary issue, though not determinative, was the evidence of JBW's use of its trade mark, particularly at the time the non-use application was filed.
The Hearing Officer applied the principles established in *Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds*, emphasizing that the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) aims to create a species of tradeable property connected with actual or contemplated trade. A person seeking to attack a registered mark must demonstrate a genuine connection to trade in the goods or services, not merely a desire to traffic in marks. The evidence presented by JBW regarding its use of "WEB VIEW" in the USA and Canada, and the readiness of its Australian subsidiary, was not sufficiently linked to the time the removal application was filed. Furthermore, there was no affirmative evidence that CKK lacked an intention to use its registered mark at the time of its own registration.
Consequently, the application for removal failed because JBW did not establish that it was a person aggrieved at the relevant time. CKK was awarded its costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Intention
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261
Structureco Inc v Starite Distributors Pty Ltd
[2000] ATMO 31