Murrays Craft Brewing Co Pty Ltd v Artemis IP Limited
Case
•
[2018] ATMO 72
•15 May 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Murrays Craft Brewing Co Pty Ltd v Artemis IP Limited [2018] ATMO 72
[2018] ATMO 72
15 May 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an opposition proceeding before the Registrar of Trade Marks, where Murrays Craft Brewing Co Pty Ltd (the Applicant) sought to register a trade mark, and Artemis IP Limited (the Opponent) filed an opposition. The Opponent failed to file any evidence in support of its opposition.
The primary legal issue before the Registrar was whether the Opponent had discharged its onus to establish at least a prima facie case for its grounds of opposition, given the absence of supporting evidence. This, in turn, determined whether the Applicant had any onus to respond or present evidence in defence of its application.
The Registrar reasoned that, pursuant to section 55 of the relevant Act, the Registrar must decide on an application having regard to the extent to which any ground of opposition has been established. The Registrar found ample precedent, including decisions in *Medley Distilling Co v Croakers Gully Australia* and *Wal-Mart Stores Inc v Ozark-London Ltd*, which establish that an opponent bears the onus of proving its grounds of opposition. In the absence of any evidence from the Opponent, no grounds of opposition were established, and therefore, no onus fell upon the Applicant to present a defence.
Accordingly, the Registrar ordered that none of the four grounds of opposition were established and that the Applicant's trade mark application, number 1773724, could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. If an appeal was filed, registration was to be stayed until the appeal was decided or discontinued.
The primary legal issue before the Registrar was whether the Opponent had discharged its onus to establish at least a prima facie case for its grounds of opposition, given the absence of supporting evidence. This, in turn, determined whether the Applicant had any onus to respond or present evidence in defence of its application.
The Registrar reasoned that, pursuant to section 55 of the relevant Act, the Registrar must decide on an application having regard to the extent to which any ground of opposition has been established. The Registrar found ample precedent, including decisions in *Medley Distilling Co v Croakers Gully Australia* and *Wal-Mart Stores Inc v Ozark-London Ltd*, which establish that an opponent bears the onus of proving its grounds of opposition. In the absence of any evidence from the Opponent, no grounds of opposition were established, and therefore, no onus fell upon the Applicant to present a defence.
Accordingly, the Registrar ordered that none of the four grounds of opposition were established and that the Applicant's trade mark application, number 1773724, could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. If an appeal was filed, registration was to be stayed until the appeal was decided or discontinued.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Appeal
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Opposition by Newzone Nominees Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1880059 (class 7) – TURBODRUM – in the name of IP Machinery Pty Ltd [2021] ATMO 81
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020