Opposition by Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité to registration of trade mark application number 1944621 (29, 30, 32, 33) – CHATEAU ROQUEHORT – in the name of Bizko Pty Ltd (as trustee for the Bizko...

The dispute before the Registrar of Trade Marks concerned an opposition by Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité to the registration of trade mark application number 1944621, CHATEAU ROQUEHORT, in the name of Bizko Pty Ltd (as trustee for the Bizko...). The opposition was lodged in respect of goods in classes 29, 30, 32, and 33.

The primary legal issue was whether the trade mark application should be refused registration under section 43 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) on the grounds that its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion as to the geographical origin of the nominated goods. The opponent contended that the mark, particularly the term "Roquehort" in conjunction with "Chateau," would lead Australian consumers to believe that the dairy products to which it was applied were either Roquefort cheese or were connected with Roquefort cheese, a well-known French product.

The Registrar considered that the onus was on the opponent to establish at least one ground of opposition on the balance of probabilities, with the relevant date for assessment being the filing date of the trade mark application. Applying section 43, the Registrar found that the opponent had established the ground of opposition in respect of the opposed goods. The reasoning focused on the likelihood of consumers misremembering the spelling of "Roquefort" and associating "Roquehort" with it, thereby being deceived as to the origin or nature of the dairy products. The inclusion of "Chateau," a word commonly associated with French origin, further reinforced this perceived connection to France and French products like Roquefort cheese.

Consequently, the Registrar decided to register the trade mark with respect to the remaining goods after the nominated goods were deleted from the specification, as per the applicant's request. This decision was made having regard to the extent to which the ground of opposition under section 43 had been established.