John Anderson as the Trustee for LPRJ Family Trust & Peter Cunningham as the Trustee for LPRJ Family Trust v Cards Against Humanity, LLC
Case
•
[2025] ATMO 201
•26 September 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
John Anderson as the Trustee for LPRJ Family Trust & Peter Cunningham as the Trustee for LPRJ Family Trust v Cards Against Humanity, LLC [2025] ATMO 201
[2025] ATMO 201
26 September 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties to this proceeding were John Anderson and Peter Cunningham, acting as trustees for the LPRJ Family Trust (the Applicants), who sought the removal of a trade mark from the Register of Trade Marks. The respondent was Cards Against Humanity, LLC (the Opponent), the registered owner of the trade mark. The dispute concerned whether the Opponent had genuinely used the trade mark in Australia in relation to the goods for which it was registered.
The primary legal issue before the Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks was whether the Opponent had established its opposition to the removal of the trade mark from the Register pursuant to section 92(4)(a) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This section requires proof that the registered owner intended to use the trade mark for the registered goods at the relevant date.
The Delegate found that the Opponent had satisfied the onus of proof. The Delegate was satisfied that, at the relevant date, the Opponent intended to use the trade mark for the registered goods. Consequently, the Delegate decided that the Opponent had established its opposition to the removal of the trade mark in respect of the registered goods and declined to remove the trade mark from the Register.
The primary legal issue before the Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks was whether the Opponent had established its opposition to the removal of the trade mark from the Register pursuant to section 92(4)(a) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This section requires proof that the registered owner intended to use the trade mark for the registered goods at the relevant date.
The Delegate found that the Opponent had satisfied the onus of proof. The Delegate was satisfied that, at the relevant date, the Opponent intended to use the trade mark for the registered goods. Consequently, the Delegate decided that the Opponent had established its opposition to the removal of the trade mark in respect of the registered goods and declined to remove the trade mark from the Register.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Intention
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
0
Source Homeloans Pty Ltd v Coles Group Ltd
[2008] ATMO 17
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Blount Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks
[1998] FCA 440