International Registration Designating Australia number 1980757 (International Registration number 1441500) (classes 10,20,27,35) - - in the name of PTM Guard SIA
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 143
•24 November 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
International Registration Designating Australia number 1980757 (International Registration number 1441500) (classes 10,20,27,35) - - in the name of PTM Guard SIA [2021] ATMO 143
[2021] ATMO 143
24 November 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for an international registration designating Australia (IRDA) number 1980757, filed in the name of PTM Guard SIA. The dispute arose from the Registrar's decision to refuse the extension of protection of the trade mark to Australia. The hearing officer, M. Cooper, was required to determine whether grounds existed for rejecting the IRDA.
The central legal issue was whether the trade mark, a three-dimensional representation of a lotus blossom with 24 cone-shaped petals, was capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services, namely acupressure mats, pillows, and related retail and marketing services. This involved an assessment under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), which requires a trade mark to be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services from those of other persons. The court considered whether the mark was inherently adapted to distinguish and, if not, whether use of the mark had resulted in it actually distinguishing the goods and services.
The hearing officer found that the trade mark was not inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods and services. While the applicant had provided evidence of use in Australia since 2014, along with registrations in other countries and a design registration in Australia, these factors were deemed insufficient to overcome the lack of inherent adaptability. The court applied the principles from *Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks* and noted that a design registration does not automatically equate to a trade mark being adapted to distinguish. The evidence of use and other circumstances did not, in the court's view, establish that the trade mark actually distinguished the goods and services as being those of the applicant.
Consequently, the hearing officer was satisfied that grounds for rejection existed under regulation 17A.24 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995* (Cth). The application for extension of protection to Australia for IRDA number 1980757 was therefore refused.
The central legal issue was whether the trade mark, a three-dimensional representation of a lotus blossom with 24 cone-shaped petals, was capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services, namely acupressure mats, pillows, and related retail and marketing services. This involved an assessment under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), which requires a trade mark to be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services from those of other persons. The court considered whether the mark was inherently adapted to distinguish and, if not, whether use of the mark had resulted in it actually distinguishing the goods and services.
The hearing officer found that the trade mark was not inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods and services. While the applicant had provided evidence of use in Australia since 2014, along with registrations in other countries and a design registration in Australia, these factors were deemed insufficient to overcome the lack of inherent adaptability. The court applied the principles from *Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks* and noted that a design registration does not automatically equate to a trade mark being adapted to distinguish. The evidence of use and other circumstances did not, in the court's view, establish that the trade mark actually distinguished the goods and services as being those of the applicant.
Consequently, the hearing officer was satisfied that grounds for rejection existed under regulation 17A.24 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995* (Cth). The application for extension of protection to Australia for IRDA number 1980757 was therefore refused.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Opposition by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA to registration of trade mark application numbers 2238310 (class 3) – [2025] ATMO 198
Cases Citing This Decision
1
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
0
Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2009] FCA 891
Apple Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2014] FCA 1304
Apple Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2014] FCA 1304