Opposition by Find Marketing Pty Ltd to application under section 92 of the Act by Find Financial Planners Pty Ltd to remove trade mark registration number 1770718 (36) Find & Device (Series) - in the name of Find...
Case
•
[2019] ATMO 71
•13 May 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Find Marketing Pty Ltd to application under section 92 of the Act by Find Financial Planners Pty Ltd to remove trade mark registration number 1770718 (36) Find & Device (Series) - in the name of Find... [2019] ATMO 71
[2019] ATMO 71
13 May 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Find Marketing Pty Ltd to an application by Find Financial Planners Pty Ltd to remove trade mark registration number 1770718, a "Find & Device (Series)" mark registered in class 36, from the Register of Trade Marks. The opposition was heard by Iain Campbell Thompson.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the registered trade mark had been genuinely used in Australia in relation to the services for which it was registered, or if there was a proper reason for non-use, pursuant to section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The applicant for removal sought to demonstrate non-use, while the registered proprietor sought to demonstrate use or establish a valid reason for non-use.
The court considered evidence of use presented by the registered proprietor, including marketing materials and evidence of services offered. The court applied the principles of genuine use, which requires more than token or sporadic use, and must be directed towards the market for the goods or services. The court also considered whether any non-use was attributable to circumstances that prevented or hindered use, rather than a voluntary decision not to use the mark.
The court found that the registered proprietor had failed to demonstrate genuine use of the trade mark in relation to the services for which it was registered. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of the trade mark from the Register.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the registered trade mark had been genuinely used in Australia in relation to the services for which it was registered, or if there was a proper reason for non-use, pursuant to section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The applicant for removal sought to demonstrate non-use, while the registered proprietor sought to demonstrate use or establish a valid reason for non-use.
The court considered evidence of use presented by the registered proprietor, including marketing materials and evidence of services offered. The court applied the principles of genuine use, which requires more than token or sporadic use, and must be directed towards the market for the goods or services. The court also considered whether any non-use was attributable to circumstances that prevented or hindered use, rather than a voluntary decision not to use the mark.
The court found that the registered proprietor had failed to demonstrate genuine use of the trade mark in relation to the services for which it was registered. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of the trade mark from the Register.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
18
Statutory Material Cited
0
E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited
[2008] FCA 934
Edwards v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd
[2008] FCA 970