Mark Handler v 42 below Limited
Case
•
[2007] ATMO 20
•23 April 2007
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mark Handler v 42 below Limited [2007] ATMO 20
[2007] ATMO 20
23 April 2007
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an application by Mark Handler for trade mark registration number 1060564, opposed by 42 Below Limited. The hearing officer, Debrett Lyons, considered the grounds of opposition raised by the opponent.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the opponent had established any sufficient grounds to justify the refusal of the trade mark application. The hearing officer was required to scrutinise the 11 grounds of opposition presented by the opponent.
The hearing officer determined that the onus rested on the opponent to establish its opposition. Upon reviewing the submissions and the grounds of opposition, the hearing officer concluded that none of the grounds were sufficiently elaborated to warrant the refusal of the application. Consequently, the opponent had not succeeded on any ground of opposition.
The trade mark application number 1060564 was therefore permitted to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was served on the Registrar, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The applicant was awarded costs on the official scale.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the opponent had established any sufficient grounds to justify the refusal of the trade mark application. The hearing officer was required to scrutinise the 11 grounds of opposition presented by the opponent.
The hearing officer determined that the onus rested on the opponent to establish its opposition. Upon reviewing the submissions and the grounds of opposition, the hearing officer concluded that none of the grounds were sufficiently elaborated to warrant the refusal of the application. Consequently, the opponent had not succeeded on any ground of opposition.
The trade mark application number 1060564 was therefore permitted to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was served on the Registrar, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The applicant was awarded costs on the official scale.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0