Openfit, LLC
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 96
•14 June 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Openfit, LLC [2022] ATMO 96
[2022] ATMO 96
14 June 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns trade mark application number 2180786, filed in the name of Openfit, LLC, for the mark "600 SECS" in class 41, relating to designated services. The application was opposed by the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the claimed mark, "600 SECS", was inherently adapted to distinguish the designated services, as required by section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). No evidence of use of the mark had been filed by the applicant.
The Hearing Officer found that the claimed mark was only to some extent, and not sufficiently, inherently adapted to distinguish the designated services. Given the absence of evidence of use, the Hearing Officer did not consider the combined effect of inherent adaptation, use, or intended use. Consequently, the Hearing Officer was satisfied that there was a ground for rejecting the application under section 41 of the Act.
In accordance with section 33(3) of the Act, the Hearing Officer rejected trade mark application number 2180786. However, a direction was made that if a notice of appeal is served on the Registrar within one month of the decision, the disposition of the application should be in accordance with the Court's order or direction.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the claimed mark, "600 SECS", was inherently adapted to distinguish the designated services, as required by section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). No evidence of use of the mark had been filed by the applicant.
The Hearing Officer found that the claimed mark was only to some extent, and not sufficiently, inherently adapted to distinguish the designated services. Given the absence of evidence of use, the Hearing Officer did not consider the combined effect of inherent adaptation, use, or intended use. Consequently, the Hearing Officer was satisfied that there was a ground for rejecting the application under section 41 of the Act.
In accordance with section 33(3) of the Act, the Hearing Officer rejected trade mark application number 2180786. However, a direction was made that if a notice of appeal is served on the Registrar within one month of the decision, the disposition of the application should be in accordance with the Court's order or direction.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Openfit, LLC [2022] ATMO 96
Most Recent Citation
LEAFSCREENER – in the name of Grayson’s International Pty Ltd [2022] ATMO 141
Cases Citing This Decision
1
LEAFSCREENER – in the name of Grayson’s International Pty Ltd
[2022] ATMO 141
Cases Cited
4
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
Sports Warehouse, Inc v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd
[2010] FCA 664