International Registration Designating Australia number 2251594 (International Registration number 1646661) (class 3) – IRL FILTER- in the name of Revolution Beauty Holdings Ltd
Case
•
[2024] ATMO 111
•19 June 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
International Registration Designating Australia number 2251594 (International Registration number 1646661) (class 3) – IRL FILTER- in the name of Revolution Beauty Holdings Ltd [2024] ATMO 111
[2024] ATMO 111
19 June 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter concerned an application for the registration of an international trade mark designating Australia, specifically the mark IRL FILTER, in class 3, filed by Revolution Beauty Holdings Ltd. The application was examined by the Australian Trade Marks Office, and the Registrar of Trade Marks sought to reject the application on the grounds that the mark was not inherently adapted to distinguish the applicant's goods from those of other persons, pursuant to section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The hearing before the delegate of the Registrar was conducted ex parte.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the mark IRL FILTER possessed the necessary inherent adaptability to distinguish the goods in class 3, which include cosmetics and skincare products, from those of other traders. This required an assessment of the ordinary meaning of the words "IRL" and "FILTER" in relation to such goods, and whether their combination would be perceived by consumers as descriptive or as a badge of origin.
The delegate reasoned that "IRL" is commonly understood as an abbreviation for "in real life," and "FILTER" refers to a device or process that removes impurities or unwanted elements, or in the context of cosmetics, a product that creates a smooth or perfected appearance. Considering the ordinary meaning of these terms in relation to cosmetics and skincare, the delegate concluded that the mark was not inherently adapted to distinguish the applicant's goods. The combination of "IRL" and "FILTER" would likely be perceived by consumers as descriptive of a product that provides a "real life" or natural-looking perfected appearance, rather than indicating a specific trade source. Therefore, the grounds for rejection under section 41 were established.
The delegate determined that the application for registration of the trade mark IRL FILTER should be rejected.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the mark IRL FILTER possessed the necessary inherent adaptability to distinguish the goods in class 3, which include cosmetics and skincare products, from those of other traders. This required an assessment of the ordinary meaning of the words "IRL" and "FILTER" in relation to such goods, and whether their combination would be perceived by consumers as descriptive or as a badge of origin.
The delegate reasoned that "IRL" is commonly understood as an abbreviation for "in real life," and "FILTER" refers to a device or process that removes impurities or unwanted elements, or in the context of cosmetics, a product that creates a smooth or perfected appearance. Considering the ordinary meaning of these terms in relation to cosmetics and skincare, the delegate concluded that the mark was not inherently adapted to distinguish the applicant's goods. The combination of "IRL" and "FILTER" would likely be perceived by consumers as descriptive of a product that provides a "real life" or natural-looking perfected appearance, rather than indicating a specific trade source. Therefore, the grounds for rejection under section 41 were established.
The delegate determined that the application for registration of the trade mark IRL FILTER should be rejected.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
4
Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks
[1964] HCA 55
Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited
[2014] HCA 48
Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2000] FCA 177