Open Universities Australia Pty Ltd v 1IQ Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2012] ATMO 113
•19 November 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Open Universities Australia Pty Ltd v 1IQ Pty Ltd [2012] ATMO 113
[2012] ATMO 113
19 November 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Open Universities Australia Pty Ltd (the Opponent) to the registration of a trade mark by 1IQ Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The proceedings were heard by Iain Thompson, Hearing Officer, in the Trade Marks Hearings.
The legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether any of the grounds on which the Opponent opposed the registration of the Applicant's trade mark had been established. The Opponent bore the onus of proving its grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities.
The Hearing Officer considered evidence filed by the Opponent, including a statutory declaration from its General Counsel, which detailed the Opponent's history, ownership by seven Australian universities, and its role in providing accessible higher education. The Applicant did not file evidence in answer. The Hearing Officer found that the evidence filed by the Applicant in its submissions was not of significant weight and did not relate to the grounds of opposition concerning the trade mark.
Ultimately, the Hearing Officer refused to register the trade mark application. As the Opponent was successful in its opposition, it was awarded its costs on the Official Scale against the Applicant.
The legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether any of the grounds on which the Opponent opposed the registration of the Applicant's trade mark had been established. The Opponent bore the onus of proving its grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities.
The Hearing Officer considered evidence filed by the Opponent, including a statutory declaration from its General Counsel, which detailed the Opponent's history, ownership by seven Australian universities, and its role in providing accessible higher education. The Applicant did not file evidence in answer. The Hearing Officer found that the evidence filed by the Applicant in its submissions was not of significant weight and did not relate to the grounds of opposition concerning the trade mark.
Ultimately, the Hearing Officer refused to register the trade mark application. As the Opponent was successful in its opposition, it was awarded its costs on the Official Scale against the Applicant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2009] FCA 891
Sports Warehouse, Inc v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd
[2010] FCA 664