Jackson Bob Yip v Country Garden Estate Development Co Ltd
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 113
•11 July 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jackson Bob Yip v Country Garden Estate Development Co Ltd [2022] ATMO 113
[2022] ATMO 113
11 July 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jackson Bob Yip opposed an application by Country Garden Estate Development Co., Ltd to remove trade mark number 1281851, registered in class 36 and comprising the words "COUNTRY GARDEN BI GUI YUAN" and a device, from the Register of Trade Marks. The application for removal was brought under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The matter was heard by Tracey Berger.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trade mark had been used in Australia in a manner that would likely deceive or cause confusion, or whether its use was otherwise contrary to law, as contemplated by section 92(4)(b) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved an assessment of the nature of the applicant's business and the extent and manner of any use of the trade mark in Australia.
The court considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the use of the trade mark. It was found that the applicant had not established that the trade mark had been used in Australia in a way that would likely deceive or cause confusion, nor that its use was otherwise contrary to law. Consequently, the grounds for removal under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) were not made out.
The opposition to the removal application was therefore successful.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trade mark had been used in Australia in a manner that would likely deceive or cause confusion, or whether its use was otherwise contrary to law, as contemplated by section 92(4)(b) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved an assessment of the nature of the applicant's business and the extent and manner of any use of the trade mark in Australia.
The court considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the use of the trade mark. It was found that the applicant had not established that the trade mark had been used in Australia in a way that would likely deceive or cause confusion, nor that its use was otherwise contrary to law. Consequently, the grounds for removal under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) were not made out.
The opposition to the removal application was therefore successful.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Standing
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
AgCare Biotech Pty Ltd v Crop Smart Pty Ltd
[2009] ATMO 41
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261
Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2010] FCA 1380