Jockey International Inc v Darren Wilkinson
Case
•
[2010] ATMO 22
•17 March 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jockey International, Inc. v Darren Wilkinson [2010] ATMO 22
[2010] ATMO 22
17 March 2010
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an opposition by Jockey International Inc. (the Opponent) to the registration of the trade mark application No. 1127359, "THROTTLE JOCKEY," filed by Darren Wilkinson (the Applicant). The matter was heard by John Spence, a Hearing Officer for Trade Marks and Designs Hearings & Oppositions.
The Opponent raised two grounds for opposition: bad faith under Section 62A of the relevant legislation and a ground under Section 60. The court was required to determine whether the Applicant had acted in bad faith in adopting the "THROTTLE JOCKEY" mark and whether the Section 60 ground of opposition was established.
The Hearing Officer found that there was no evidence to suggest that the Applicant had sought to copy the "JOCKEY" trade mark or had acted deliberately in doing so. Consequently, the Opponent had not satisfied the onus of establishing bad faith under Section 62A. However, the Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had established its opposition on the ground under Section 60.
Accordingly, the opposition succeeded, and the registration of the trade mark application "THROTTLE JOCKEY" was refused. The Applicant was ordered to pay the Opponent's costs in accordance with Schedule 8 of the Trade Mark Regulations.
The Opponent raised two grounds for opposition: bad faith under Section 62A of the relevant legislation and a ground under Section 60. The court was required to determine whether the Applicant had acted in bad faith in adopting the "THROTTLE JOCKEY" mark and whether the Section 60 ground of opposition was established.
The Hearing Officer found that there was no evidence to suggest that the Applicant had sought to copy the "JOCKEY" trade mark or had acted deliberately in doing so. Consequently, the Opponent had not satisfied the onus of establishing bad faith under Section 62A. However, the Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had established its opposition on the ground under Section 60.
Accordingly, the opposition succeeded, and the registration of the trade mark application "THROTTLE JOCKEY" was refused. The Applicant was ordered to pay the Opponent's costs in accordance with Schedule 8 of the Trade Mark Regulations.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Intention
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Hills Industries Ltd v Bitek Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 94
Cases Citing This Decision
70
Cases Cited
27
Statutory Material Cited
0
Kowa Co Ltd v Organon
[2005] FCA 1282
Unilever Plc v Beiersdorf AG
[2017] ATMO 25
Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co
[1960] HCA 47