Dimokranitis v Exotic Limo Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2010] ATMO 69
•29 July 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dimokranitis v Exotic Limo Pty Ltd [2010] ATMO 69
[2010] ATMO 69
29 July 2010
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Theo Dimokranitis to the registration of trade mark application 1148162 by Exotic Limo Pty Ltd. The opponent, Mr Dimokranitis, operates a car hire business under the name "Exoticar" and is the registered owner of trade mark 1125223 for car hire and car rental services, including those associated with chauffeur-driven vehicles. He alleged use of his trade mark and the plain word "EXOTICAR" since 2002 in connection with his business, which caters to special occasions such as weddings and formals.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the grounds of opposition raised by Mr Dimokranitis had been established to the extent that they warranted the refusal of Exotic Limo Pty Ltd's trade mark application. The onus was on the opponent to prove these grounds on the balance of probabilities. The opponent's evidence detailed the history and nature of his car hire business, including the size of his fleet, advertising expenditure, and the establishment of a website to promote his services.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established his opposition to the registration of application 1148162. Consequently, the application was permitted to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was filed, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the opponent, as there was no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the grounds of opposition raised by Mr Dimokranitis had been established to the extent that they warranted the refusal of Exotic Limo Pty Ltd's trade mark application. The onus was on the opponent to prove these grounds on the balance of probabilities. The opponent's evidence detailed the history and nature of his car hire business, including the size of his fleet, advertising expenditure, and the establishment of a website to promote his services.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established his opposition to the registration of application 1148162. Consequently, the application was permitted to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was filed, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the opponent, as there was no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Cars on Demand IP Pty Ltd v Cars on Demand Limited [2014] ATMO 87
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Barossa Valley Estate Pty Ltd v Australian Vintage Limited
[2015] ATMO 70
Watches of Switzerland Pty Ltd v Mappin & Webb Limited
[2015] ATMO 23
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2009] FCA 891
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58