Opposition by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust to registration of trade mark application no. 1977830 –CJK- in the name of Korea Ginseng Corp.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 90
•27 August 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust to registration of trade mark application no. 1977830 –CJK- in the name of Korea Ginseng Corp. [2021] ATMO 90
[2021] ATMO 90
27 August 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust (the opponent) opposed the registration of the trade mark application no. 1977830, CJK-, filed by Korea Ginseng Corp. (the applicant). The opposition was heard by Bianca Irgang, acting as delegate for the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant's trade mark should be refused registration under various sections of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), including sections 42(b), 44, 58, and 60. The opponent alleged that the CJK- mark was deceptively similar to its own registered trade marks and that its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The delegate found that the opposition was partially successful under section 60 of the Act, which relates to the use of a trade mark that is identical or deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark and is likely to cause confusion. However, the delegate found no grounds for opposition under sections 42(b), 44, or 58. The applicant was afforded an opportunity to amend its application, which it did.
As the opponent was successful in its opposition to some of the services for which registration was sought, costs were awarded against the applicant in accordance with section 221 of the Act and Schedule 8 of the Regulations.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant's trade mark should be refused registration under various sections of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), including sections 42(b), 44, 58, and 60. The opponent alleged that the CJK- mark was deceptively similar to its own registered trade marks and that its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The delegate found that the opposition was partially successful under section 60 of the Act, which relates to the use of a trade mark that is identical or deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark and is likely to cause confusion. However, the delegate found no grounds for opposition under sections 42(b), 44, or 58. The applicant was afforded an opportunity to amend its application, which it did.
As the opponent was successful in its opposition to some of the services for which registration was sought, costs were awarded against the applicant in accordance with section 221 of the Act and Schedule 8 of the Regulations.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020