Opposition by Big Bus Tours Limited to registration of trade mark application no. 1897730 – THE BIG BUS - in the name of Adam William Ford.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 117
•11 October 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Big Bus Tours Limited to registration of trade mark application no. 1897730 – THE BIG BUS - in the name of Adam William Ford. [2021] ATMO 117
[2021] ATMO 117
11 October 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Big Bus Tours Limited to the registration of trade mark application no. 1897730, for the mark "THE BIG BUS", filed by Adam William Ford. The opposition was heard by Bianca Irgang, a Hearing Officer.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the trade mark application should be refused on the grounds raised by the opponent, specifically under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This section requires an application to be rejected if the trade mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services from those of other persons.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had met its onus in establishing the ground of opposition under section 41. This conclusion was reached after considering the evidence presented by both parties. The Hearing Officer determined that the trade mark "THE BIG BUS" was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's services from those of other persons, and that the evidence did not demonstrate sufficient use to overcome this deficiency.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer refused to register trade mark application no. 1897730. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the applicant in favour of the opponent, following the usual principle that costs follow the event.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the trade mark application should be refused on the grounds raised by the opponent, specifically under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This section requires an application to be rejected if the trade mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services from those of other persons.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had met its onus in establishing the ground of opposition under section 41. This conclusion was reached after considering the evidence presented by both parties. The Hearing Officer determined that the trade mark "THE BIG BUS" was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's services from those of other persons, and that the evidence did not demonstrate sufficient use to overcome this deficiency.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer refused to register trade mark application no. 1897730. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the applicant in favour of the opponent, following the usual principle that costs follow the event.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks
[1964] HCA 55
Burger King Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks
[1973] HCA 15