Live Entertainment Investments III Pty Ltd v The Education Group Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2018] ATMO 3
•11 January 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Live Entertainment Investments III Pty Ltd v The Education Group Pty Ltd [2018] ATMO 3
[2018] ATMO 3
11 January 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Live Entertainment Investments III Pty Ltd, the registered owner of the trade mark TEG, applied to remove the mark from the Register of Trade Marks under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The applicant, The Education Group Pty Ltd, sought removal on grounds that were not specified in the provided text. The matter was decided on the written record by Adrian Richards.
The court was required to determine whether the trade mark TEG, registered for services in Class 41 including education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities, should be removed from the Register. The specific grounds for removal were not detailed in the provided text, but the process involved the applicant filing an application, the opponent filing a notice of intention to oppose and a statement of grounds and particulars, and both parties filing evidence.
The decision was made on the written record due to neither party requesting a hearing. The opponent filed evidence in support and written submissions, while the applicant filed evidence in answer but elected not to file written submissions. The evidence comprised declarations from individuals associated with the previous owner and the current owner, as well as a declaration from a legal representative. The court's reasoning and the specific legal principles applied in reaching its decision are not detailed in the provided text.
The court was required to determine whether the trade mark TEG, registered for services in Class 41 including education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities, should be removed from the Register. The specific grounds for removal were not detailed in the provided text, but the process involved the applicant filing an application, the opponent filing a notice of intention to oppose and a statement of grounds and particulars, and both parties filing evidence.
The decision was made on the written record due to neither party requesting a hearing. The opponent filed evidence in support and written submissions, while the applicant filed evidence in answer but elected not to file written submissions. The evidence comprised declarations from individuals associated with the previous owner and the current owner, as well as a declaration from a legal representative. The court's reasoning and the specific legal principles applied in reaching its decision are not detailed in the provided text.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
13
G.F.A. (Aust) Pty Ltd v Yiwu Rashel Trading CO., Ltd
[2025] ATMO 10
369 Labs Pty Ltd v BP plc
[2024] ATMO 209
Orlando Farese v Giacomo letto and Justin Lamattina
[2023] ATMO 180
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
0
Austin Nicholls & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt (No 1)
[2012] FCAFC 8
Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2010] FCA 1380