Hamdard National Foundation (India) v Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 83
•24 May 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan [2022] ATMO 83
[2022] ATMO 83
24 May 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Hamdard National Foundation (India) opposed the registration of the trade mark application number 1961747, "Hamdard Rooh Afza Inspired by Nature and device," by Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan. The opposition was heard by Louise Tuohy, Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The opponent bore the onus of establishing at least one ground of opposition, with the standard of proof being the balance of probabilities.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark should be rejected under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act* (the Act) on the grounds that it was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a registered trade mark or a trade mark for which registration was being sought by another person, in respect of similar goods or closely related services. The Hearing Officer also considered the exceptions to rejection provided by subsections 44(3) and 44(4) of the Act, relating to honest concurrent use or continuous use prior to the priority date of the other trade mark.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had met its onus in establishing the ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act. Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register the trade mark. The Hearing Officer directed that registration would not occur until any appeal was withdrawn or discontinued, and otherwise ordered that the disposition of the application be in accordance with the Court's order or direction. Costs were awarded against the applicant.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark should be rejected under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act* (the Act) on the grounds that it was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a registered trade mark or a trade mark for which registration was being sought by another person, in respect of similar goods or closely related services. The Hearing Officer also considered the exceptions to rejection provided by subsections 44(3) and 44(4) of the Act, relating to honest concurrent use or continuous use prior to the priority date of the other trade mark.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had met its onus in establishing the ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act. Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register the trade mark. The Hearing Officer directed that registration would not occur until any appeal was withdrawn or discontinued, and otherwise ordered that the disposition of the application be in accordance with the Court's order or direction. Costs were awarded against the applicant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Hamdard Laboratories (WAQF) Pakistan v Hamdard National Foundation (India) [2023] ATMO 179
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
1
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Kicking Horse Coffee Co. Ltd
[2018] ATMO 193