Laminar Air Flow Pty Limited v Vokes Limited
Case
•
[2017] ATMO 48
•29 May 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Laminar Air Flow Pty Limited v Vokes Limited [2017] ATMO 48
[2017] ATMO 48
29 May 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Laminar Air Flow Pty Limited (the Applicant) sought correction of the Register of Trade Marks under section 81 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) to reflect its ownership of certain trade mark registrations. Vokes Limited (the Opponent) opposed this application. The dispute arose from an amendment made on 17 August 2001, which changed the registered owner's name from Vokes Limited to AES Environmental Pty Ltd, purportedly under section 216(2) of the Act. The Applicant contended this amendment was an error, as there was no evidence of a valid assignment of the trade marks to AES Environmental Pty Ltd. The matter was heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks, and subsequently, with the agreement of the parties, by Iain Campbell Thompson.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the amendment to the Register on 17 August 2001, changing the registered owner's name from Vokes Limited to AES Environmental Pty Ltd, was made in error and should be corrected under section 81 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. This required the court to determine if the change in the name of the registered owner constituted a mere alteration of the name or a change in the identity of the owner, and if the latter, whether it was effected by a valid assignment or other legal mechanism.
The court reasoned that section 216(2) of the Act only permits the Registrar to amend the Register to reflect a change in the *name* of the registered owner, not a change in the *identity* of the registered owner. A change in the identity of the registered owner can only occur through mechanisms such as assignment, transmission, cancellation, or probate, as affirmed in *Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Limited v Mobileworld Communications Pty Limited*. The court found no hard evidence before it demonstrating a valid assignment of the trade mark registrations from Vokes Limited to AES Environmental Pty Ltd. Therefore, the amendment made on 17 August 2001 was considered an error.
The court ordered that the particulars of the registered owner of the trade marks be corrected to reflect the ownership of the Applicant, Laminar Air Flow Pty Limited, as the original amendment was made in error and there was no evidence of a valid assignment to AES Environmental Pty Ltd.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the amendment to the Register on 17 August 2001, changing the registered owner's name from Vokes Limited to AES Environmental Pty Ltd, was made in error and should be corrected under section 81 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. This required the court to determine if the change in the name of the registered owner constituted a mere alteration of the name or a change in the identity of the owner, and if the latter, whether it was effected by a valid assignment or other legal mechanism.
The court reasoned that section 216(2) of the Act only permits the Registrar to amend the Register to reflect a change in the *name* of the registered owner, not a change in the *identity* of the registered owner. A change in the identity of the registered owner can only occur through mechanisms such as assignment, transmission, cancellation, or probate, as affirmed in *Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Limited v Mobileworld Communications Pty Limited*. The court found no hard evidence before it demonstrating a valid assignment of the trade mark registrations from Vokes Limited to AES Environmental Pty Ltd. Therefore, the amendment made on 17 August 2001 was considered an error.
The court ordered that the particulars of the registered owner of the trade marks be corrected to reflect the ownership of the Applicant, Laminar Air Flow Pty Limited, as the original amendment was made in error and there was no evidence of a valid assignment to AES Environmental Pty Ltd.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia
[2013] FCAFC 153
Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia
[2013] FCAFC 153
Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd v CIL Inc
[1981] HCA 64