Opposition by Ampac Pty Ltd to application under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Boss Fire & Safety Pty Ltd to remove trade mark number 825224 (Class 9) – FireFinder stylised - in the name of Ampac...
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 132
•3 November 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Ampac Pty Ltd to application under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Boss Fire & Safety Pty Ltd to remove trade mark number 825224 (Class 9) – FireFinder stylised - in the name of Ampac... [2021] ATMO 132
[2021] ATMO 132
3 November 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) by Boss Fire & Safety Pty Ltd (the Removal Applicant) to remove trade mark number 825224, the stylised "FireFinder" mark in Class 9, from the Register of Trade Marks. The registered owner of the trade mark, Ampac Pty Ltd (the Removal Opponent), opposed this removal. The hearing was before Blake Knowles, Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the Removal Opponent had made genuine use of the trade mark during the relevant period, as required by section 92(4)(b) of the Act. This involved determining whether the use established by the Removal Opponent, including use by its predecessor in title, Ampac Technologies Pty Ltd, was sufficient to rebut the allegation of non-use.
The Hearing Officer found that the Removal Opponent had successfully rebutted the allegation of non-use. Evidence was presented demonstrating the use of the "FireFinder" trade mark on fire alarm control panels, associated software instructional documents, and in marketing materials, including brochures and the Removal Opponent's website. Invoices and revenue figures further supported substantial sales of goods under the trade mark. The Hearing Officer noted that use by the predecessor in title could be relied upon by the Removal Opponent. Consequently, the trade mark was ordered to remain on the Register. The Removal Opponent was awarded costs against the Removal Applicant.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the Removal Opponent had made genuine use of the trade mark during the relevant period, as required by section 92(4)(b) of the Act. This involved determining whether the use established by the Removal Opponent, including use by its predecessor in title, Ampac Technologies Pty Ltd, was sufficient to rebut the allegation of non-use.
The Hearing Officer found that the Removal Opponent had successfully rebutted the allegation of non-use. Evidence was presented demonstrating the use of the "FireFinder" trade mark on fire alarm control panels, associated software instructional documents, and in marketing materials, including brochures and the Removal Opponent's website. Invoices and revenue figures further supported substantial sales of goods under the trade mark. The Hearing Officer noted that use by the predecessor in title could be relied upon by the Removal Opponent. Consequently, the trade mark was ordered to remain on the Register. The Removal Opponent was awarded costs against the Removal Applicant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Remedies
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Rise & Shine Education Pty Ltd v Shine Lawyers Pty Ltd [2023] ATMO 158
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
The Coca-Cola Company v All-Fect Distributors Ltd
[1999] FCA 1721
McHattan v Australian Specialised Vehicle Systems Pty Ltd
[1996] FCA 481
Pioneer Computers Australia Pty Ltd v Pioneer KK
[2009] FCA 135