Mad Keen Pty Ltd (April Cornwell) v Jenkar Developments Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2011] ATMO 91
•14 September 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mad Keen Pty Ltd (April Cornwell) v Jenkar Developments Pty Ltd [2011] ATMO 91
[2011] ATMO 91
14 September 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a request by Mad Keen Pty Ltd to amend the name of the opponent in a notice of opposition filed on 29 March 2010. The original opponent was listed as A. Cornwell, and Mad Keen Pty Ltd sought to substitute its own name for that of A. Cornwell. Jenkar Developments Pty Ltd contested this amendment. The decision was made by Hearing Officer Heath Wilson of the Trade Marks Hearings.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether it was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to permit the amendment of the opponent's name in the notice of opposition. This involved considering Jenkar Developments Pty Ltd's opposition to the proposed change and the implications for the parties involved.
The Hearing Officer found that the requested amendment was fair and reasonable. He noted that Jenkar Developments Pty Ltd had exercised its right to contest the issue and had therefore accepted the inherent risks. The Hearing Officer directed that the name of the opponent on the notice of opposition be amended from A. Cornwell to Mad Keen Pty Ltd within one month of the decision, with the corresponding Australian Company Number to be updated. In relation to costs, the Hearing Officer awarded costs against Jenkar Developments Pty Ltd in favour of Ms Cornwell, limiting the allowable costs to the Hearing Fee, attendance costs for Dr Pullen's appearance, and the preparation of the case for the hearing. The Hearing Officer also made directions regarding the amendment in the event of an appeal.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether it was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to permit the amendment of the opponent's name in the notice of opposition. This involved considering Jenkar Developments Pty Ltd's opposition to the proposed change and the implications for the parties involved.
The Hearing Officer found that the requested amendment was fair and reasonable. He noted that Jenkar Developments Pty Ltd had exercised its right to contest the issue and had therefore accepted the inherent risks. The Hearing Officer directed that the name of the opponent on the notice of opposition be amended from A. Cornwell to Mad Keen Pty Ltd within one month of the decision, with the corresponding Australian Company Number to be updated. In relation to costs, the Hearing Officer awarded costs against Jenkar Developments Pty Ltd in favour of Ms Cornwell, limiting the allowable costs to the Hearing Fee, attendance costs for Dr Pullen's appearance, and the preparation of the case for the hearing. The Hearing Officer also made directions regarding the amendment in the event of an appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia
[2013] FCAFC 153
Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia
[2013] FCAFC 153
Goldmine Software Corporation v South & Walker Pty Limited
[2000] ATMO 52