Opposition by Fit Revolution Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1962481 (classes 5 and 32) – AMFIT NUTRITION (Plain Word) - in the name of Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 35
•30 April 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Fit Revolution Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1962481 (classes 5 and 32) – AMFIT NUTRITION (Plain Word) - in the name of Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l. [2021] ATMO 35
[2021] ATMO 35
30 April 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Fit Revolution Pty Ltd to the registration of the trade mark application number 1962481, AMFIT NUTRITION (Plain Word), in classes 5 and 32, filed by Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l. The opposition was heard by Hearing Officer Kate Doherty.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the proposed AMFIT NUTRITION trade mark should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition pursuant to sections 42(b) (in relation to sections 18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Opponent contended that the Applicant's mark was deceptively similar to their own registered trade marks, specifically a stylised mark and the word mark FIT NUTRITION, and that its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The Hearing Officer found that the stylisation and the inclusion of the distinct term "AM" in the Applicant's trade mark distinguished it as a whole from the Opponent's stylised mark. Consequently, the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the use of the AMFIT NUTRITION trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, and therefore the Opponent failed to establish the section 60 ground of opposition. As no grounds of opposition were established, the Hearing Officer ordered that trade mark application number 1962481 would proceed to registration, and awarded costs against the Opponent.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the proposed AMFIT NUTRITION trade mark should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition pursuant to sections 42(b) (in relation to sections 18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Opponent contended that the Applicant's mark was deceptively similar to their own registered trade marks, specifically a stylised mark and the word mark FIT NUTRITION, and that its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The Hearing Officer found that the stylisation and the inclusion of the distinct term "AM" in the Applicant's trade mark distinguished it as a whole from the Opponent's stylised mark. Consequently, the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the use of the AMFIT NUTRITION trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, and therefore the Opponent failed to establish the section 60 ground of opposition. As no grounds of opposition were established, the Hearing Officer ordered that trade mark application number 1962481 would proceed to registration, and awarded costs against the Opponent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58