Onkyo Kabushiki Kaisha Doing Business as Onkyo Corporation v Dynaudio Holdings A/S
Case
•
[2018] ATMO 120
•1 August 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Onkyo Kabushiki Kaisha Doing Business as Onkyo Corporation v Dynaudio Holdings A/S [2018] ATMO 120
[2018] ATMO 120
1 August 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Onkyo Kabushiki Kaisha, doing business as Onkyo Corporation (the Applicant), sought to register the trade mark "ONKYO" in class 9. Dynaudio Holdings A/S (the Opponent) opposed this application. The decision was made by Nicholas Smith, a Hearing Officer.
The Opponent contended that the trade mark should not be registered under section 43 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), arguing that its use in relation to the Applicant's goods was likely to deceive or cause confusion. The core legal issue was whether the use of the trade mark "ONKYO" in relation to the specified goods would lead to such deception or confusion.
The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had failed to establish the ground of opposition under section 43. His reasoning was that he was not satisfied that the use of the trade mark in relation to the Applicant's goods would create an apparent connotation likely to result in deception or confusion. Consequently, the Opponent did not establish any of the grounds of opposition it nominated.
The Hearing Officer ordered that Trade Mark application no. 1766497 may 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unless a notice of appeal was served on the Registrar, in which case registration would be stayed until the appeal was withdrawn or discontinued. The Applicant was awarded costs against the Opponent.
The Opponent contended that the trade mark should not be registered under section 43 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), arguing that its use in relation to the Applicant's goods was likely to deceive or cause confusion. The core legal issue was whether the use of the trade mark "ONKYO" in relation to the specified goods would lead to such deception or confusion.
The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had failed to establish the ground of opposition under section 43. His reasoning was that he was not satisfied that the use of the trade mark in relation to the Applicant's goods would create an apparent connotation likely to result in deception or confusion. Consequently, the Opponent did not establish any of the grounds of opposition it nominated.
The Hearing Officer ordered that Trade Mark application no. 1766497 may 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 until the appeal was withdrawn or discontinued. The Applicant was awarded costs against the Opponent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Onkyo Kabushiki Kaisha Doing Business as Onkyo Corporation v Dynaudio Holdings A/S [2018] ATMO 120
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Winton Shire Council v Lomas
[2002] FCA 288
Winton Shire Council v Lomas
[2002] FCA 288
Winton Shire Council v Lomas
[2002] FCA 288