Opposition by Jaguar Land Rover Limited to extension of protection to International Registration 1373509 (classes 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42) (Australian trade mark application...
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 96
•3 September 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Jaguar Land Rover Limited to extension of protection to International Registration 1373509 (classes 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42) (Australian trade mark application... [2021] ATMO 96
[2021] ATMO 96
3 September 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jaguar Land Rover Limited opposed the extension of protection to International Registration 1373509, which sought protection across numerous classes of goods and services in Australia. The opposition was heard by Nicholas Barbey, acting as delegate for the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition raised by Jaguar Land Rover Limited under sections 42(b), 43, 44, 59, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) were established. These grounds relate to matters such as deceptive or misleading representation, resemblance to earlier marks, and use of the mark in a manner likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The delegate found that none of the grounds of opposition were established. In reaching this decision, the delegate applied the relevant provisions of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* and the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995*, considering the evidence presented by both parties. The delegate concluded that the applicant had met the requirements for the extension of protection to Australia.
Consequently, the delegate ordered that protection be extended to International Registration 1373509 in Australia.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition raised by Jaguar Land Rover Limited under sections 42(b), 43, 44, 59, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) were established. These grounds relate to matters such as deceptive or misleading representation, resemblance to earlier marks, and use of the mark in a manner likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The delegate found that none of the grounds of opposition were established. In reaching this decision, the delegate applied the relevant provisions of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* and the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995*, considering the evidence presented by both parties. The delegate concluded that the applicant had met the requirements for the extension of protection to Australia.
Consequently, the delegate ordered that protection be extended to International Registration 1373509 in Australia.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58