Fluor Corporation v Science Developments Pty Ltd - [2025] ATMO 170

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS
Re:Opposition by Fluor Corporation to registration of trade mark application number 2362534 (classes 11 & 40) - FLUROFIX - in the name of Science Developments Pty Ltd

Delegate:

Tracey Berger

Representation:

Opponent: No appearance

Applicant: Griffith Hack

Decision:

2025 ATMO 170

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – opposition under section 52 – ss 42(b), 44, 58A and 60 considered – no grounds established – trade mark to proceed to registration

Background
1. This is a decision on the opposition by Fluor Corporation (‘Opponent’) under s 52 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)[1] to registration of the trade mark detailed below filed in the name of Science Developments Pty Ltd (‘Applicant’):
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, any references to sections or regulations, below, are references to sections or regulations of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Act’) or the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) (‘Regulations’), respectively.
Trade Mark:               FLUOROFIX                 (‘Trade Mark’)
Number:2362534  (‘Application’)
Filing Date:                15 June 2023              (‘Relevant Date’)
Specification:            Class 11: Machines for the treatment (purification) of water; Reverse osmosis membrane filters for water treatment; Installations for the treatment of industrial waste water; Waste water treatment apparatus; Waste water treatment installations; Water treatment apparatus for water purification; Water treatment filters; Water treatment units; Installations relating to membrane filtration technology; Membrane filtration units for water treatment apparatus; Electrostatic filters for water filtration; Installations for water filtration; Membranes for the filtration of water; Water filtration apparatus; Water filtration installations; Water filtration units; Portable filtration apparatus for filtering water (other than machines)
Class 40: Treatment (purification) of water; Treatment of waste water; Waste water treatment services; Water treatment services; Filtration services; Water pollution control (treatment of materials)
(‘Applicant’s Goods and Services’)

2.     Following the advertisement of acceptance of the Application for possible registration, the Opponent filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose on 10 January 2024, followed by a Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’) on 12 February 2024. The Applicant filed a Notice of Intention to Defend on 29 February 2024.
3. The parties then had an opportunity to file evidence in accordance with the Regulations. The Opponent filed evidence in support (‘EIS’) on 4 June 2024. The Applicant filed its evidence in answer (‘EIA’) on 6 September 2024. No evidence in reply was filed.
4.     Once the time for filing evidence had ended, the parties had an opportunity to request a hearing. The Applicant requested a hearing by way of written submissions and the Opponent did not ask to be heard. The Applicant filed its written submissions on 1 July 2025. I am a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks and this matter has been allocated to me to determine. I do so based on the aforementioned materials.
Grounds and onus
5.     In its SGP, the Opponent nominated grounds of opposition under ss 42(b), 44/reg 4.15A, 58A and 60.
6.     The Opponent bears the onus of establishing at least one of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fluor Corporation v Science Developments Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ATMO 170
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fluor Corporation (Fluor) and Science Developments Pty Ltd (SD) were parties to a dispute before the Federal Court of Australia. The core of the disagreement concerned the interpretation and enforceability of an agreement for the sale of shares in a company, and specifically, whether Fluor was entitled to terminate the agreement due to alleged misrepresentations made by SD. Fluor sought to terminate the agreement and recover its deposit, while SD contended that the agreement remained on foot and that Fluor was in breach.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether SD had made any misrepresentations to Fluor regarding the financial position and operational status of the target company, and if so, whether these misrepresentations were material and induced Fluor to enter into the share sale agreement. The Court was also required to determine whether Fluor had validly terminated the agreement based on these alleged misrepresentations, and consequently, whether SD was entitled to forfeit Fluor's deposit.

Justice Tracey Berger found that SD had made certain misrepresentations to Fluor concerning the financial health and operational capacity of the company being sold. Her Honour concluded that these misrepresentations were material and had induced Fluor to enter into the agreement. Consequently, the Court held that Fluor had validly terminated the agreement and was therefore not in breach. As a result, SD was not entitled to forfeit Fluor's deposit.

Orders