Opposition by Emoji Company GMBH to registration of trade mark application no. 1816866 (9, 41, 42 and 45) EMEJI - in the name of Inquisitive Learners Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2019] ATMO 70
•10 May 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Emoji Company GMBH to registration of trade mark application no. 1816866 (9, 41, 42 and 45) EMEJI - in the name of Inquisitive Learners Pty Ltd [2019] ATMO 70
[2019] ATMO 70
10 May 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Emoji Company GMBH to the registration of trade mark application no. 1816866, for the mark EMEJI, in the name of Inquisitive Learners Pty Ltd. The opposition was filed in relation to classes 9, 41, 42, and 45. The decision was made by Hearing Officer Bianca Irgang.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark EMEJI was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, any of the opponent's registered trade marks, pursuant to section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The opponent also sought to rely on additional evidence, requesting permission to file it under Regulation 21.19.
The Hearing Officer first refused the opponent's request to file additional evidence. In relation to the substantive opposition, the Hearing Officer found that the opponent had successfully demonstrated that its registered trade marks were either substantially identical or deceptively similar to the applicant's trade mark EMEJI, and that these registered trade marks related to similar or closely related services. Crucially, the opponent's trade marks also had earlier priority dates than the applicant's trade mark application.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer refused to register trade mark application no. 1816866. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the applicant in favour of the opponent, in accordance with section 221 of the Act.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark EMEJI was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, any of the opponent's registered trade marks, pursuant to section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The opponent also sought to rely on additional evidence, requesting permission to file it under Regulation 21.19.
The Hearing Officer first refused the opponent's request to file additional evidence. In relation to the substantive opposition, the Hearing Officer found that the opponent had successfully demonstrated that its registered trade marks were either substantially identical or deceptively similar to the applicant's trade mark EMEJI, and that these registered trade marks related to similar or closely related services. Crucially, the opponent's trade marks also had earlier priority dates than the applicant's trade mark application.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer refused to register trade mark application no. 1816866. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the applicant in favour of the opponent, in accordance with section 221 of the Act.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020