Foster?s Australia Limited v Steven Cromey
Case
•
[2012] ATMO 76
•7 September 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Foster?s Australia Limited v Steven Cromey [2012] ATMO 76
[2012] ATMO 76
7 September 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Foster's Australia Limited (the Opponent) opposed two trade mark applications by Steven Cromey (the Applicant) for the marks "My Kind of Crown" and "My Kind of Crown This Lager is". The opposition was heard by Iain Thompson, a Hearing Officer in the Trade Marks Hearings.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, particularly those relating to the Applicant's intention to use the trade marks in Australia under section 59 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established on the balance of probabilities. The Opponent also relied on other grounds of opposition, including the likelihood of confusion arising from its well-known "Crown Lager" brand.
The Hearing Officer noted that the Opponent bore the onus of establishing the grounds of opposition. The Opponent had provided statutory declarations as evidence, including a letter sent to the Applicant under section 59 of the Act, which detailed the Opponent's concerns about the Applicant's intention to use the trade marks. The Applicant had not filed any evidence in answer. The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had established grounds for opposition, particularly concerning the Applicant's lack of intention to use the trade marks in Australia.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register both trade mark applications. The Opponent was successful in its opposition and was awarded its costs against the Applicant on the Official Scale.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, particularly those relating to the Applicant's intention to use the trade marks in Australia under section 59 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established on the balance of probabilities. The Opponent also relied on other grounds of opposition, including the likelihood of confusion arising from its well-known "Crown Lager" brand.
The Hearing Officer noted that the Opponent bore the onus of establishing the grounds of opposition. The Opponent had provided statutory declarations as evidence, including a letter sent to the Applicant under section 59 of the Act, which detailed the Opponent's concerns about the Applicant's intention to use the trade marks. The Applicant had not filed any evidence in answer. The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had established grounds for opposition, particularly concerning the Applicant's lack of intention to use the trade marks in Australia.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register both trade mark applications. The Opponent was successful in its opposition and was awarded its costs against the Applicant on the Official Scale.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Intention
-
Costs
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
18
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2009] FCA 891
Sports Warehouse, Inc v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd
[2010] FCA 664