TRADE MARKS ACT 1995
DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS
Re:Application by Freelife International Holdings LLC to register trade mark application 1154313(5, 32) – GOJI JUICE (Logo).
Delegate: | Iain Thompson |
Representation: | Applicant: Margaret Shearer of Banki Haddock Fiora |
Decision: | 2009 ATMO 45 S41 grounds: words Goji Juice (per se) without any inherent adaption to distinguish – get up within trade mark – s41(5) grounds when considered with restricted specification of goods, use of the trade mark – trade mark to be accepted for possible registration under the provisions of section 41(5) with specification of goods restricted to accord with the description in the trade mark. |
Background
In this matter Freelife International Holdings LLC (‘the applicant’) of Phoenix, Arizona, USA, has applied to register a trade mark, details of which appear below:
Application No: 1154313
Priority Date: 29 December 2006
Goods:Class: 5 Nutritional supplements, dietary supplements, and liquid dietary supplements
Class: 32 Nutritionally fortified fruit-based beverages; sports drinks
Trade Mark:
(‘the applied-for trade mark’)
In terms of section 33 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (‘the Act’), an examiner has reported grounds for rejection under subsection 41(6) of the Act because, “Your proposed trade mark indicates that the goods consist of goji juice.” The examiner does not state what goji juice is, but I understand from materials submitted by the applicant that goji juice is an extract or ‘squash’ made from berries of the goji tree which is of Himalayan origin and which is spruiked or touted as having beneficial effects on the health of those who ingest it.
The applicant submitted evidence of the use of the trade mark to the examiner and the examiner did not withdraw his objections that grounds exist in terms of subsection 41(6) for the rejection of the trade mark.
The applicant applied to be heard and (as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks) I heard the applicant’s submissions presented by Margaret Shearer of Banki Haddock Fiora.
I will state at the outset that Ms Shearer does not dispute the fact that the words GOJI JUICE designate the extract from the berries of a tree or bush of Himalayan origin or that the extract has supposed beneficial effects on the imbibers’ health. Rather, Ms Shearer submits that the get-up in the trade mark should be considered sufficient to allow acceptance of the trade mark, especially when considered in conjunction with acquired distinctiveness through the use of the trade mark.
The Use of the Trade Mark
Put briefly, the evidence of the use of the trade mark is attested to within a statutory declaration by Christopher Reid, General Counsel of the applicant. This use amounts to well over one million bottles sold during the period 2004 to 2007, leading up to the priority date of the opposed application. The trade mark appears on the label of the bottle which itself is the subject of a trade mark registration in Australia – that registration being…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Freelife International Holdings LLC 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] ATMO 45
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Freelife International Holdings LLC had established a "genuine dispute" regarding the existence of the debt claimed by Mr. Thompson, such that it would be inequitable to proceed with the statutory demand. This required the court to consider the nature and substance of the alleged grounds of dispute.
The court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute. The alleged grounds of dispute, relating to alleged breaches of contract and misrepresentations by Mr. Thompson, were found to be unsubstantiated and lacking in sufficient particularity to raise a real question as to the existence of the debt. The court applied the principles established in cases concerning the setting aside of statutory demands, emphasizing that mere assertions of a dispute are insufficient; the dispute must be genuine and have a real prospect of success.
Consequently, the court dismissed the application to set aside the statutory demand.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.