Jackson Family Farms, LLC and Jackson Family Wines, Inc v Grands Domaines Du Littoral
Case
•
[2023] ATMO 171
•30 October 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jackson Family Farms, LLC and Jackson Family Wines, Inc v Grands Domaines Du Littoral [2023] ATMO 171
[2023] ATMO 171
30 October 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jackson Family Farms, LLC and Jackson Family Wines, Inc (the Opponent) opposed the extension of protection of an International Registration of a Design (IRDA) to Australia by Grands Domaines Du Littoral (the Holder). The opposition was brought under regulation 17A.33 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), with grounds including sections 42, 44, 58A, 58, and 60 of the Act. The decision was made by the Registrar.
The primary legal issue before the Registrar was whether any of the grounds of opposition had been established, thereby preventing the extension of protection of the IRDA to Australia. Specifically, the Registrar was required to determine the extent to which the grounds of opposition were made out and, consequently, whether to refuse protection entirely, extend it partially, or extend it with conditions.
The Registrar found that the Opponent had successfully established the ground of opposition pursuant to section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. As a result, the Registrar refused to extend protection of the IRDA to Australia in its entirety. The Registrar also ordered that costs follow the event, awarding costs against the Holder in accordance with section 221 of the Act and the amounts specified in Schedule 8 of the Regulations.
The primary legal issue before the Registrar was whether any of the grounds of opposition had been established, thereby preventing the extension of protection of the IRDA to Australia. Specifically, the Registrar was required to determine the extent to which the grounds of opposition were made out and, consequently, whether to refuse protection entirely, extend it partially, or extend it with conditions.
The Registrar found that the Opponent had successfully established the ground of opposition pursuant to section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. As a result, the Registrar refused to extend protection of the IRDA to Australia in its entirety. The Registrar also ordered that costs follow the event, awarding costs against the Holder in accordance with section 221 of the Act and the amounts specified in Schedule 8 of the Regulations.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Karen Walker Limited v Premonition Designs Pty Ltd and Mamta Group Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 103
Cases Citing This Decision
1
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
4
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663