Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc v Elvis Jelcic
Case
•
[2008] ATMO 103
•24 December 2008
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc v Elvis Jelcic [2008] ATMO 103
[2008] ATMO 103
24 December 2008
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc. (the opponent) opposed the trade mark application by Elvis Jelcic (the applicant). The dispute concerned the applicant's proposed registration of a trade mark, and the opponent contended that the application should be refused on grounds of deception or confusion due to the similarity between the applied-for mark and the renowned reputation of Elvis Presley. The decision was made by Jock McDonagh, a Hearing Officer at Trade Marks Hearings.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, specifically the risk of deception or confusion, had been established. This required an assessment of the potential impact of the applicant's trade mark on consumers, given the established fame of the artist Elvis Presley.
The Hearing Officer found that despite any similarity between the application and cited trade marks, there was no real or tangible danger of deception or confusion occurring. Consequently, the ground of opposition was not established. Applying section 55 of the relevant Act, which mandates the Registrar to decide on registration based on established grounds of opposition, the Hearing Officer determined that as no grounds had been established, the trade mark application could proceed to registration. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the opponent.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, specifically the risk of deception or confusion, had been established. This required an assessment of the potential impact of the applicant's trade mark on consumers, given the established fame of the artist Elvis Presley.
The Hearing Officer found that despite any similarity between the application and cited trade marks, there was no real or tangible danger of deception or confusion occurring. Consequently, the ground of opposition was not established. Applying section 55 of the relevant Act, which mandates the Registrar to decide on registration based on established grounds of opposition, the Hearing Officer determined that as no grounds had been established, the trade mark application could proceed to registration. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the opponent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Effem Foods Pty Ltd v Wandella Pet Foods Pty Ltd
[2006] FCA 767
McCorquodale v Masterson
[2004] FCA 1247
McCorquodale v Masterson
[2004] FCA 1247