Major Intellectual LLC
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 87
•31 May 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Major Intellectual LLC [2022] ATMO 87
[2022] ATMO 87
31 May 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Major Intellectual LLC for registration of the trade mark CARBONE in Class 43, heard by Blake Knowles, delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The dispute arose from the Applicant's attempt to register the trade mark for services including the provision of food and drink, and temporary accommodation.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the trade mark CARBONE was capable of distinguishing the Applicant's services in Australia, as required by the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the trade mark possessed inherent adaptability to distinguish, whether there had been any use of the mark in Australia, evidence of intended use, and whether the mark had acquired an appreciable reputation amongst Australian consumers.
The delegate considered evidence of the Applicant's operations in the United States, including website analytics, social media presence, and media coverage in Australian publications. While this evidence indicated some awareness of the Applicant's restaurants in Australia, the delegate found that the trade mark had only a modest level of inherent adaptability to distinguish and that there was no significant use or reputation established in Australia. The delegate also noted that the word "carbone" translates to "coal" in Italian, which could have a descriptive connotation in relation to certain services.
Ultimately, the delegate concluded that the grounds for rejection under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* were made out. Consequently, the Application for the trade mark CARBONE was rejected for all services.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the trade mark CARBONE was capable of distinguishing the Applicant's services in Australia, as required by the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the trade mark possessed inherent adaptability to distinguish, whether there had been any use of the mark in Australia, evidence of intended use, and whether the mark had acquired an appreciable reputation amongst Australian consumers.
The delegate considered evidence of the Applicant's operations in the United States, including website analytics, social media presence, and media coverage in Australian publications. While this evidence indicated some awareness of the Applicant's restaurants in Australia, the delegate found that the trade mark had only a modest level of inherent adaptability to distinguish and that there was no significant use or reputation established in Australia. The delegate also noted that the word "carbone" translates to "coal" in Italian, which could have a descriptive connotation in relation to certain services.
Ultimately, the delegate concluded that the grounds for rejection under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* were made out. Consequently, the Application for the trade mark CARBONE was rejected for all services.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Intention
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Major Intellectual LLC [2022] ATMO 87
Most Recent Citation
The Mosaic Company a Delaware Corporation v Wengfu Australia Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 24
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Opposition by Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC to applications under section 92 of the
[2025] ATMO 194
Motel One GmbH v CSI DaniŞManlik Ve Destek HİZmetlerİ
[2025] ATMO 16
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
1
Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks
[1964] HCA 55
Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited
[2014] HCA 48