Green Canpump Inc.

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995



DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS

Re:Trade mark application number 2291383 (Classes 7 and 35) – CANPUMP – in the name of Green Canpump Inc.

Delegate:

Debrett Lyons

Representation:

Applicant: Lance Scott of Gestalt Law Pty Ltd

Decision:

2023 ATMO 135

Request to be heard under s 33(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) in relation to ground for rejection under s 41 of the Act – s 41 considered – trade mark accepted.

Background

  1. This is a decision following examination of trade mark application number 2291383 (Application) filed by Green Canpump Inc. (Applicant) on 4 August 2022 for CANPUMP (Trade Mark) in respect of the following goods and services:

Class 7

Machinery; machine tools; high-pressure pumps; pumps (machines); high pressure cleaning machines; electric motors (other than for land vehicles); parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods (Goods)

Class 35

Distribution of goods (not being transport services) and wholesale of goods; retail services; advertising, marketing, promotional and business services (Services)

  1. The Trade Mark was examined as required by s 31 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).[1]  The examiner raised a ground for rejection which the Applicant was unable to overcome during correspondence with the Office and so the Applicant requested a hearing by videoconference. The matter was heard by me, a delegate of the Registrar, on 6 September 2023.   Lance Scott of Gestalt Law Pty Ltd appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

    [1] All references to sections are references to a section of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (the ‘Act’),

    Legislative framework and ground for rejection

  2. Under s 33(1)(b), the Registrar must accept the Application unless satisfied there exists a ground for rejecting it.[2] The examiner raised a ground for rejection under s 41, the provision being set out below:

    41 – Trade Mark not distinguishing applicant’s goods or services

    (1)An application for the registration of a trade mark must be rejected if the trade mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is sought to be registered (the designated goods or services) from the goods or services of other persons.

    Note:        For goods of a person and services of a person see section 6.

    (2)A trade mark is taken not to be capable of distinguishing the designated goods or services from the goods or services of other persons only if either subsection (3) or (4) applies to the trade mark.

    (3)This subsection applies to a trade mark if:

    (a)the trade mark is not to any extent inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods or services from the goods or services of other persons; and

    (b)the applicant has not used the trade mark before the filing date in respect of the application to such an extent that the trade…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Green Canpump Inc. 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
[2023] ATMO 135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Green Canpump Inc., sought registration of a trade mark. The delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks considered a request to be heard under s 33(4) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) concerning a ground for rejection under s 41 of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the trade mark was inherently distinctive and capable of registration, having regard to the provisions of s 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth).

In reaching the decision, the delegate considered s 33(1)(b) of the Act. The delegate found that the trade mark was inherently distinctive and therefore capable of registration. Consequently, the delegate was not satisfied that there were grounds for rejection.

The delegate accepted the Application for registration of the trade mark.

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

With s 33(1)(b) in mind, I find the Trade Mark inherently distinctive and capable of registration.Decision I am not satisfied that there are grounds for rejection and so I accept the Application.Debrett LyonsHearing OfficerDelegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks8 September 2023

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.