Chloe SA v Lin Australia Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an opposition to a trade mark application, brought by Chloe SA (the opponent) against Lin Australia Pty Ltd (the applicant). The hearing was conducted by Jock McDonagh, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The opponent, a well-known fashion house, opposed the registration of the applicant's trade mark, arguing it was substantially identical or deceptively similar to its own registered mark. The applicant did not appear at the hearing.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's trade mark was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the opponent's registered trade mark for similar or closely related goods, and to consider the respective priority dates of the marks. The opponent also raised a ground of opposition under section 60 of the Act, relating to the reputation of its mark.

The delegate considered the evidence of the opponent's long-standing reputation in the fashion industry and the nature of its high-quality garments. The delegate found that the opponent had not established a ground of opposition under section 60, as no connotation of sponsorship or endorsement could be attributed to the applicant's mark. However, the delegate found that the opponent had established grounds of opposition under section 44, based on the substantial identity or deceptive similarity between the marks and the similarity of the goods.

Consequently, the delegate refused to register the applicant's trade mark application. The opponent was awarded costs against the applicant.