In-Telegence Pty Ltd, Re

Case

[1994] ATMO 97

9 December 1994


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
In-Telegence Pty Ltd, Re [1994] ATMO 97 [1994] ATMO 97 9 December 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This decision concerns an application by IN-TELEGENCE PTY. LTD. (the applicant) to register the trade mark STOCKWATCH for "real time stock market information services using the telephone as the delivery mechanism" in class 36. The examiner initially raised objections under paragraphs 24(1)(c), (d), and (e) of the Act, asserting the mark directly described the character or quality of the services. The applicant agreed to amend the application to Part B of the Register and disclaim the words "STOCK" and "WATCH" separately. However, the examiner subsequently reconsidered, finding the mark neither inherently distinctive nor capable of becoming distinctive under section 25 of the Act, as it comprised descriptive words likely to be used by other traders.

The legal issues before the delegate were whether the trade mark STOCKWATCH was registrable in Part B of the Register. This required determining if the mark was distinctive, or capable of becoming distinctive, of the applicant's services, as stipulated by section 25(1) of the Act. The delegate also had to consider whether the mark was adapted to distinguish the applicant's services from those of other traders, a criterion established in cases such as *Clark Equipment Co. v. Registrar of Trade Marks*.

The delegate reasoned that the words "STOCK" and "WATCH" directly described the character of the services, which involved monitoring stock market activity and providing related information. Drawing on dictionary definitions and the common understanding of terms like "stock watcher" in financial contexts, the delegate concluded that the mark was generic and that other traders would likely need to use these words to describe similar services. Consequently, the mark was not considered adapted to distinguish the applicant's services. As no evidence of actual distinctiveness had been provided, the delegate found that the mark failed to meet the requirements of section 25.

Accordingly, the delegate refused the application for registration of the trade mark STOCKWATCH in Part B of the Register.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Intellectual Property

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Statutory Construction

  • Reliance

  • Offer and Acceptance

  • Remedies

  • Standing

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0