Opposition by Jamie Smith, Oliver Sim and Romy Croft to registration of trade mark application number 1903635 (class 9, 25) - in the name of Coen Rodgers.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 9
•03 February 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Jamie Smith, Oliver Sim and Romy Croft to registration of trade mark application number 1903635 (class 9, 25) - in the name of Coen Rodgers. [2021] ATMO 9
[2021] ATMO 9
03 February 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Jamie Smith, Oliver Sim and Romy Croft (the Opponents) to the registration of trade mark application number 1903635, in the name of Coen Rodgers (the Applicant), for goods in class 9 and clothing in class 25. The opposition was heard by Timothy Brown.
The legal issues before the court included whether the grounds of opposition under sections 42(b), 52, 58, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) were established. The court also considered the Opponents' request to amend their Statement of Grounds and Particulars (SGP) to include additional grounds, which was allowed.
The court found that the Opponents had not established any of the grounds of opposition. In assessing the reputation of a trade mark, the court noted that a significant number of people in the relevant market would need to be aware of it, referencing the principles outlined in *McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick* [2000] FCA 1335. As the Opponents were unsuccessful in their opposition, the court ordered that costs be awarded against them in accordance with Schedule 8 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995* (Cth).
The legal issues before the court included whether the grounds of opposition under sections 42(b), 52, 58, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) were established. The court also considered the Opponents' request to amend their Statement of Grounds and Particulars (SGP) to include additional grounds, which was allowed.
The court found that the Opponents had not established any of the grounds of opposition. In assessing the reputation of a trade mark, the court noted that a significant number of people in the relevant market would need to be aware of it, referencing the principles outlined in *McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick* [2000] FCA 1335. As the Opponents were unsuccessful in their opposition, the court ordered that costs be awarded against them in accordance with Schedule 8 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995* (Cth).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0