Chrysler Corporation v Mark Grundy
Case
•
[2000] ATMO 104
•26 September 2000
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Chrysler Corporation v Mark Grundy [2000] ATMO 104
[2000] ATMO 104
26 September 2000
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Chrysler Corporation opposed the registration of two trade marks, numbers 732836 for the word "RAM" and 732837 for a device of a ram's head in a shield, both filed by Mark Grundy for vehicles and vehicle accessories. The opposition was heard by the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the Registrar were whether the applications should be refused on the grounds of ownership, prior reputation and deception or confusion, and whether the applications themselves were defective. Chrysler Corporation contended that it had established a significant reputation in Australia for vehicles sold under the "RAM" trade mark and associated ram's head device prior to Mr Grundy's applications, and that the registration of Mr Grundy's marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The Registrar considered extensive evidence from both parties regarding Chrysler Corporation's history and use of the "RAM" trade mark and ram's head device in relation to its Dodge vehicles, particularly pick-up trucks. Evidence was presented showing that while Chrysler Corporation did not directly ship its RAM vehicles to Australia before the application date, global advertising and publications featuring these vehicles had penetrated the Australian market. The Registrar noted that articles and advertisements about Dodge RAM models had appeared in Australian newspapers between 1993 and 1997, and a book detailing Dodge pickup history, which included the ram's head device, had been sold in Australia since 1996. The Registrar concluded that the evidence demonstrated a sufficient level of reputation and awareness of Chrysler Corporation's RAM trade marks in Australia by April 1997 to support the opposition.
The legal issues before the Registrar were whether the applications should be refused on the grounds of ownership, prior reputation and deception or confusion, and whether the applications themselves were defective. Chrysler Corporation contended that it had established a significant reputation in Australia for vehicles sold under the "RAM" trade mark and associated ram's head device prior to Mr Grundy's applications, and that the registration of Mr Grundy's marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The Registrar considered extensive evidence from both parties regarding Chrysler Corporation's history and use of the "RAM" trade mark and ram's head device in relation to its Dodge vehicles, particularly pick-up trucks. Evidence was presented showing that while Chrysler Corporation did not directly ship its RAM vehicles to Australia before the application date, global advertising and publications featuring these vehicles had penetrated the Australian market. The Registrar noted that articles and advertisements about Dodge RAM models had appeared in Australian newspapers between 1993 and 1997, and a book detailing Dodge pickup history, which included the ram's head device, had been sold in Australia since 1996. The Registrar concluded that the evidence demonstrated a sufficient level of reputation and awareness of Chrysler Corporation's RAM trade marks in Australia by April 1997 to support the opposition.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
Malibu Boats West Inc v Catanese
[2000] FCA 1141
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd
[2005] HCA 26
Seven Up Co v OT Ltd
[1947] HCA 59