Express Sales & Marketing Pty Ltd v Snapper Hill Group Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 93
•10 June 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Express Sales & Marketing Pty Ltd v Snapper Hill Group Pty Ltd [2022] ATMO 93
[2022] ATMO 93
10 June 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Express Sales & Marketing Pty Ltd (the Opponent) sought an extension of time under regulation 9.11 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995* (Cth) to file a notice of intention to oppose an application for removal of trade mark registration number 1212163 for EXPRESS TINTING with device, filed by Snapper Hill Group Pty Ltd (the Removal Applicant). The hearing officer, Blake Knowles, acting as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks, considered the application.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether to grant the Opponent an extension of time to file its notice of intention to oppose the removal application. A secondary issue arose concerning the timeliness of the Statement of Grounds and Particulars (SGP) filed by the Removal Applicant, and whether regulations 9.11 and 9.12 applied to it.
The hearing officer was satisfied that the Opponent had established grounds for an extension of time and accordingly granted an extension of three months to file the notice of intention to oppose. The hearing officer also found that the Removal Applicant's SGP had been filed within the prescribed time, rendering it unnecessary to consider the application of regulations 9.11 and 9.12 in relation to that document.
The hearing officer allowed the extension of time for the Opponent to file its notice of intention to oppose until 8 October 2021. The SGP filed by the Removal Applicant on 25 October 2021 would subsequently be assessed for adequacy. If deemed adequate, the Removal Applicant would be provided with a copy and notified of the deadline for filing a notice of intention to defend.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether to grant the Opponent an extension of time to file its notice of intention to oppose the removal application. A secondary issue arose concerning the timeliness of the Statement of Grounds and Particulars (SGP) filed by the Removal Applicant, and whether regulations 9.11 and 9.12 applied to it.
The hearing officer was satisfied that the Opponent had established grounds for an extension of time and accordingly granted an extension of three months to file the notice of intention to oppose. The hearing officer also found that the Removal Applicant's SGP had been filed within the prescribed time, rendering it unnecessary to consider the application of regulations 9.11 and 9.12 in relation to that document.
The hearing officer allowed the extension of time for the Opponent to file its notice of intention to oppose until 8 October 2021. The SGP filed by the Removal Applicant on 25 October 2021 would subsequently be assessed for adequacy. If deemed adequate, the Removal Applicant would be provided with a copy and notified of the deadline for filing a notice of intention to defend.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Neurocrine Biosciences Inc v KINNECT Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] ATMO 63
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
2
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd
[1986] HCA 40
Chalk v Commissioner for Superannuation
[1994] FCA 1063
Comcare v A'Hearn
[1993] FCA 498