Opposition by Augusta National Inc to registration of trade mark application 1743326(41) - THE MASTERS PENNANT EST.1981 AND DEVICE - in the name of Dennis Roy

Case

[2018] ATMO 199

20 December 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Opposition by Augusta National Inc to registration of trade mark application 1743326(41) - THE MASTERS PENNANT EST.1981 AND DEVICE - in the name of Dennis Roy [2018] ATMO 199 [2018] ATMO 199 20 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an opposition by Augusta National Inc. to the registration of trade mark application number 1743326(41), for the mark THE MASTERS PENNANT EST.1981 AND DEVICE, in the name of Dennis Roy. The opposition was heard by M. Cooper.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's trade mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion, pursuant to section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), and whether the applicant was the owner of the trade mark. The opponent, Augusta National Inc., contended that its well-known trade mark "The Masters" for a golf tournament was likely to be confused with the applicant's proposed mark. The applicant, Dennis Roy, argued that his mark referred to a long-standing amateur golf competition and that there was no likelihood of confusion.

The court considered evidence from both parties. The opponent provided extensive evidence of the international renown and promotion of its "Masters" golf tournament, including its broadcast in Australia since the 1980s and significant website traffic from Australia. The applicant, Mr. Roy, described his group as organising an annual golf tournament called "The Masters Pennant," which he claimed had been in use since 1990, and that the mark was associated exclusively with his services. He also asserted that other golf clubs ran similar "Masters Pennant" tournaments and that he was unaware of any confusion.

The court found that the opponent had established that its "Masters" tournament was well known in Australia. It also found that the applicant's evidence did not establish that the applicant was the owner of the trade mark, nor did it demonstrate that the applicant had used the trade mark in Australia prior to the filing date of the application. Consequently, the opposition was successful, and the trade mark application was refused.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Intellectual Property

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Standing

  • Intention

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

17

Statutory Material Cited

0

Pfizer Products Inc v Karam [2006] FCA 1663