Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited v Taylor

This matter concerned a trade mark application heard before Claudia Murray, a delegate of the Registrar, in Sydney on 27 October 2003. The applicant, Robert Denis Taylor and Margaret Vivienne Taylor, sought to register a trade mark, while the opponent, Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited, opposed the registration. The hearing was attended by counsel representing both parties.

The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the trade mark application should be refused registration. The opponent's opposition was based on several grounds, including those under sections 41 and 60 of the relevant legislation, and potentially other grounds not pursued at the hearing. The delegate was required to determine if the opponent had successfully established any of these grounds for opposition.

The delegate found that the opponent had succeeded on the ground argued under section 60 of the legislation. The evidence presented by the opponent, which detailed the extensive history, public recognition, and significant supporter base of Greenpeace, was sufficient to establish that the registration of the trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The delegate noted that the opponent's case did not meet a higher threshold of misleading or deceiving conduct, and the applicant's submissions did not persuade the delegate otherwise. The opponent's case under section 42 was unsuccessful, and the delegate did not consider the section 41 ground as the section 60 ground had been made out.

Consequently, the delegate refused to register the trade mark application. The opponent was awarded costs against the unsuccessful applicants.