Kimberley-Clark Worldwide, Inc v Goulimis

The case of Kimberley-Clark Worldwide, Inc v Goulimis involved a dispute over the registration of a trade mark. The respondent, Alexandra Goulimis, had applied for the registration of the trade mark “HUGGIE” MUMMY in Class 35, which covers advertising and business management services. The opponent, Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc, filed a notice of opposition on the grounds that the respondent did not have the requisite intention to use the trade mark at the priority date, 15 November 2005. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had a real and definite intention to use the trade mark as a trade mark at the priority date. The court had to consider the evidence provided by both parties to determine whether the respondent had the necessary intention to use the trade mark.

The court found that the evidence led to the inference that the respondent did not have a real and definite intention to use the “HUGGIE” MUMMY trade mark at the priority date. The respondent had applied for registration of the trade mark in relation to services such as the direct selling of toys, videos, CD’s, books, games, and accessories. However, the court found that there was no evidence that the respondent had any intention to use the trade mark in relation to these services at the priority date. The court also found that the respondent’s application was not supported by any evidence of actual use of the trade mark in relation to the specified services. The court concluded that the respondent had not established the requisite intention to use the trade mark at the priority date.

As a result, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated 17 January 2008. The trade mark application was refused, and the respondent was ordered to pay the opponent’s costs of the appeal and the opposition proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of the respondent's intention to use the trade mark at the priority date and the absence of any actual use of the trade mark in relation to the specified services.