Opposition by Happy Skincare ATF Breckell Family Trust to registration of trade mark application number 1960077 (class 8) HAPPYSKINCO - in the name of Happy Skin Co Pty Ltd.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 16
•26 February 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Happy Skincare ATF Breckell Family Trust to registration of trade mark application number 1960077 (class 8) HAPPYSKINCO - in the name of Happy Skin Co Pty Ltd. [2021] ATMO 16
[2021] ATMO 16
26 February 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Happy Skincare ATF Breckell Family Trust (the Opponent) to the registration of the trade mark application number 1960077, HAPPYSKINCO, in Class 8, by Happy Skin Co Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The decision was made by Timothy Brown.
The court was required to determine whether the Applicant's trade mark application should be rejected on various grounds, including under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Specifically, the court considered whether the Applicant's trade mark was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a trade mark registered by another person in respect of similar goods or closely related services, with an earlier priority date.
The court found that the Opponent had established its opposition under section 44(1) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Opponent relied on its trade mark registration number 1647425, which had a priority date of 17 September 2014. This registered trade mark covered a range of goods in Class 3, including non-medicated skin care products and cosmetic preparations. The court noted that this registered trade mark was owned by a party other than the Applicant and had an earlier priority date than the Applicant's trade mark application. The Applicant's trade mark application was therefore refused registration. The court also awarded costs against the Applicant in favour of the Opponent.
The court was required to determine whether the Applicant's trade mark application should be rejected on various grounds, including under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Specifically, the court considered whether the Applicant's trade mark was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a trade mark registered by another person in respect of similar goods or closely related services, with an earlier priority date.
The court found that the Opponent had established its opposition under section 44(1) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Opponent relied on its trade mark registration number 1647425, which had a priority date of 17 September 2014. This registered trade mark covered a range of goods in Class 3, including non-medicated skin care products and cosmetic preparations. The court noted that this registered trade mark was owned by a party other than the Applicant and had an earlier priority date than the Applicant's trade mark application. The Applicant's trade mark application was therefore refused registration. The court also awarded costs against the Applicant in favour of the Opponent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Mark Robinson and Brenda Robinson v Henkel AG & Co KGaA [2023] ATMO 97
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Nomads World Hotels Pty Ltd v Nomad Group Pty Ltd
[2025] ATMO 44
Mark Robinson and Brenda Robinson v Henkel AG & Co KGaA
[2023] ATMO 97
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663